Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIAL EMPIRE

Service Personnel (Nationality)

Mr. Gower: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proportion of entrants into the Colonial Service are persons born in the United Kingdom; and what proportion are nationals of other Commonwealth countries.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): The great majority of posts in the public services of the Colonial Territories are filled by local recruitment. Of those recruited for the Colonial Service through the Colonial Office since the war, about 95 per cent. have been persons born in the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, and about 3 per cent. persons born in other Commonwealth countries. Some Colonial Governments also recruit people direct from other Commonwealth countries.

Mr. Gower: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that from the Commonwealth point of view that is a very disappointing position, and does he not agree that a way of cementing our relationship with the other Commonwealth countries is to increase the number of nationals of those countries entering the Colonial Service?

Mr. Lyttelton: I quite agree with that general sentiment. The Colonial Governments, as I say, do endeavour to recruit directly from the Commonwealth countries.

Coronation Amnesty (Deserters)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will advise that a Coronation amnesty be

granted to deserters and other ex-Service men in the colonial forces found guilty of offences under military regulations during the war.

Mr. Lyttelton: Following the Prime Minister's statement on 23 rd February about the Coronation amnesty for deserters, the Governors of Colonial Territories where forces are raised under local ordinances were asked to consider whether any similar announcement should be made locally in respect of those forces. I have not yet been informed whether any action was taken on this and am, therefore, making inquiries. I see no reason, however, for the grant of an amnesty to other than deserters from colonial forces. Such a proposal would go beyond what has been considered appropriate in this country.

Mr. Brockway: While expressing appreciation of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has been approached by the Ex-Service Men's Association of Nigeria on this matter, and if he can give us any date when he is likely to have these replies, as the Coronation is approaching?

Mr. Lyttelton: I expect to have a reply shortly. Speaking from memory, I do not think that I have received any representations from the body which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Commissioner, South-East Asia (Pamphlet)

Mr. F. Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make a further statement regarding the official pamphlet entitled, "Healing Thoughts," published by the British Commissioner for South-East Asia.

Mr. Lyttelton: I have now seen the pamphlet, and copies have been put in the Library. I do not propose to take any action in this matter.

Mr. Maclean: Now that he has read it, will my right hon. Friend say whether he found this publication as soothing as the title would seem to indicate?

Mr. Lyttelton: Parts I found soothing, parts I found not so soothing, and none of it I found very exciting.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the High Commissioner has done a very great service in seeking to bring the races together in the Far East?

Mr. Lyttelton: That is a general question with which I would agree, but the question with which I am trying to deal is the contents of a pamphlet called "Healing Thoughts."

Corporal Punishment

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent progress has been made in respect of the appeal made by the Trusteeship Committee of the United Nations for the abolition of corporal punishment as a penal sentence in the Colonies.

Mr. Lyttelton: I assume that the reference is to the General Assembly Resolution of 18th January, 1952, relating to Trust Territories. I would refer to my reply to the question by the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Peter Freeman) on 31st January, 1952. The only development since that date has been the appointment of a committee by the Tanganyika Government to ascertain public opinion on this form of punishment.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a statement similar to that has already been made regarding the opinion of the Tanganyika Government? Has the opinion of the Tanganyika Government yet to be secured? Can progress be expedited in this matter in other colonial areas?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have not received the report. The policy of Her Majesty's Government in this matter remains the same.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL AFRICA

Federation Scheme

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is being done by the Colonial Office and by the Government of Northern Rhodesia to explain the proposed scheme of federation to the peoples of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland who will be affected by it.

Mr. Lyttelton: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. and learned Member on 4th March.

Mr. Hughes: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it is a condition precedent to the success of this scheme that the Africans should be persuaded that it is wise and expedient, and will he take some steps to explain it to them, instead of forcing it upon them?

Mr. Lyttelton: I quite agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman about the necessity of doing everything we can to explain the scheme to the Africans. That is what we are doing in many ways. I would draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention particularly to broadcasts and newspaper articles in papers in the vernacular in addition to those other measures which I told the hon. and learned Member about before.

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what answer he gave to the message which was received by him from the Nyasaland Chiefs' Conference at Lilongwe on 14th and 15th March, 1953, regarding Central African Federation.

Mr. Lyttelton: None, Sir.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that the chiefs of Nyasaland have declared that they will pursue a policy of non-violence and non-co-operation, and that they will also pursue a policy of non-collaboration in district councils and provincial councils alike if Central African Federation is carried out? Does he think that that is a basis on which he can implement federation in the future.

Mr. Lyttelton: I suggest that the hon. Member has got into his supplementary very much wider issues than could possibly be suggested by the Question on the Paper.

Mr. Hale: But would the right hon. Gentleman say why he did not return an answer to this message?

Mr. Lyttelton: The communication does not appear to call for one.

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what instructions he has given to district officers of Nyasaland in the matter of presenting the proposed scheme of Central African Federation to the African peoples.

Mr. Lyttelton: Instructions to district officers are a matter for the Nyasaland Government who, as I informed the hon.


and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) on 4th March, and reminded him today, are causing the district administrations to make every effort to explain and commend the proposals.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister not aware that many of these district officers should not have been asked to handle political matters of this kind, and can he please tell us if the district officers were asked at any time to give their own comments on this action that they were asked to undertake by the Nyasaland Government?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think it is the duty of district officers to attempt to explain Government policy. It is part of their functions, and this principle has in no way been abrogated by the instructions sent to district officers.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will my right hon. Friend not agree that if such instructions had been given two years ago the great mass of these difficulties would never have arisen?

Mr. Lyttelton: My hon. Friend must not ask me to answer for proposals for which I was not responsible.

Mr. Wigg: In order to improve relations with Nyasaland, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the district officers to circulate a copy of the Bishop of Nyasaland's letter which appears in "The Times" this morning?

Mr. Lyttelton: I shall certainly not make any representations to the district officers on that point unless numerous other letters in contrary terms on the subject are also circulated at the same time.

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the functions with reference to the administration of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland which will remain vested in the Parliament of the United Kingdom when the present proposals for closer co-operation in Central Africa are fully implemented.

Mr. Lyttelton: In all matters outside the competence of the federal government the functions of the United Kingdom Parliament remain entirely unchanged. Legally the functions of Parliament will remain unchanged even in matters within

the competence of the federal government. I must, however, say that on matters within the competence of the federal government, United Kingdom Ministers will not be able to accept responsibility in Questions and in debate, save where that is laid upon Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom by the federal constitution.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We can discuss this later, but did I gather aright from the Secretary of State that even when the scheme is implemented and federation comes into existence, no question can be asked in this House about the federal government, the federal parliament or their actions?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think the right hon. Gentleman slightly misunderstands me. I think the principle on which we act is that United Kingdom Ministers, although Parliament remains legally responsible, cannot be asked to answer questions about administrative matters and other things for which they do not hold direct responsibility.

Mr. Griffiths: But since it is understood and agreed that the protectorate status of the two northern territories will be preserved although they are part of Central African Federation, surely that brings it within competence of Ministers to answer Questions in this House.

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, that is covered by the first part of my answer in regard to matters outside the competence of the federal government, that is to say, that on all matters concerning the territorial Governments, in the functioning of which an obligation on the United Kingdom Parliament is implied, Ministers will answer Questions, and the position remains entirely unchanged. It is only on other matters that there is a difference.

Mr. Griffiths: This seems to be of importance. Do I understand that Questions about the territorial Governments will still be answerable here, but am I right in gathering that my first impression was right and that Questions in regard to the federal government and the federal Parliament will not be the responsibility of Ministers here, and that, therefore, we will have no opportunity of asking Questions in this House?

Mr. Lyttelton: The right hon. Gentleman goes far too fast because there are matters concerning the federal government, in fact the most important ones, about which this House will still be able to put Questions to the Ministers responsible, but there are matters of day-to-day administration which I think the Table will rule are not the responsibility of Ministers here to answer.

Mr. Hale: But will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind what the White Paper specifically said that Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland will continue to be Protectorates under the Crown, while at the same time it goes on to allocate the specific subjects for the federal government, such as foreign affairs, defence, taxation, administration of law and order and so on, leaving no function whatever in the hands of the Imperial Parliament? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider following the normal Government practice of introducing an Amendment in the House of Lords to make this thing clear?

Mr. Lyttelton: This is getting really wide of ordinary matters dealt with by Questions. The hon. Member is entirely wrong in supposing that the functions left to the territorial Governments are very small. They are extremely large, and in regard to these the present practice will continue.

Mr. Dugdale: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that if a matter is referred by the African Affairs Board to the Governor and finally to the Colonial Secretary, Questions could be asked on the matter in the House of Commons?

Mr. Lyttelton: I should imagine so, but the right hon. Gentleman will hardly expect me to anticipate the decisions of Mr. Speaker on such a matter.

Higher Education

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received the report of the Commission set up in connection with the establishment of a Central African College for the higher education of Africans; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Lyttelton: The Report, which is addressed to the Central African Council, has been received and will be published

early in June. I cannot yet make a statement on the Report, but I hope to touch on the subject of higher education in Central Africa in the debate we are to have later this afternoon.

Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell us when the Report was received?

Mr. Lyttelton: Speaking from memory, I believe it was about two or three weeks ago, but I will send the hon. Member the date.

Mr. Wigg: If the Report has been in the right hon. Gentleman's hands for three weeks, surely it would have been possible, in view of the importance of this subject, for the Government to have made an announcement long before this?

Mr. Lyttelton: It seems to me a great pity that the hon. Gentleman is not in closer touch with the handling of public affairs. I can only say that I will make a statement, which I think will give him satisfaction, on many of these points this afternoon.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: Will my right hon. Friend hasten the building of the college so that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) can quickly become a student of it?

Nyasaland (Money Collections)

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what appeal is open to a person who has been refused permission by a district commissioner to collect money under Section 3 of the Penal Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 1953, of Nyasaland.

Mr. Lyttelton: There is no legislative right of appeal against the decision of the district commissioner, but, of course, any person has the right to make representations to the Governor and to myself. There is of course a right of appeal against conviction for holding of collections without permission.

Mrs. White: As it appears from the Ordinance in question that, while the police can give general permission to charitable or religious bodies, it is only the district commissioners who can give permission to political or trade union bodies to make such collections, will he see that as far as possible there are no discrepancies in the decisions made by the different district commissioners?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Lady is asking me to guarantee the human race against all errors and in all circumstances, and that is a thing I cannot do. The object of these regulations is to try to prevent unauthorised people getting up subscriptions for odd bodies, which may have no legal existence; and very often these funds are routed to undesirable pockets

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST INDIES

Caribbean Federation

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is yet in a position to make a statement on the results of the recent conference in London on West Indies federation.

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will now make a statement on the conference now meeting in London to consider West Indian federation.

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the recent conference on West Indies federation.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a further statement with regard to the conference on West Indian federation.

Mr. Parker: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the recent British Caribbean conference.

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the question of the proposals for federation in the West Indies.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am happy to say that the conference reached agreement on a plan for federation, which will now be submitted to the West Indian Legislatures concerned. A summary of the report of the conference, which was issued to the Press when it ended on 30th April, has been placed in the Library of the House. The full report will be published shortly as a White Paper which will be issued simultaneously here and in the Caribbean Colonies.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I thank the Secretary of State for sending me a detailed report of the conference, and would ask him what steps he proposes to take immediately to implement the result of that conference.

Mr. Lyttelton: It is not in my competence or power to implement the results of that conference. It lies now in the hands of the separate Legislatures of the 10 countries involved.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I offer congratulations and good wishes to all those who took part in the conference, including the Secretary of State. Does it not show the advantage of patience and negotiations that, after 10 years of a movement begun by the late Mr. Oliver Stanley, we are able to get federation by agreement and consent?

Mr. Lyttelton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he is not using this particular occasion, which, I think, is a happy one, to introduce by a side door an argument about Central African federation.

Mr. R. Robinson: Does my right hon. Friend think that the proposed plan leaves ample opportunity for British Guiana and British Honduras to join the federation if they so desire?

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, that is so. The door, if it is not open, is at least ajar.

Trade Unionists' Visit, Kingston

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he proposes to take in connection with the incident at Kingston, Jamaica, when a Canadian and a United States official of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, were, upon landing, requested to sign undertakings that they would not address or speak to any groups of trade unionists in the island; and whether he is aware that the National Workers Union of Jamaica is affiliated to the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, and that the two officials concerned were on routine business of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions.

Mr. Lyttelton: This matter is within the competence of the Government of Jamaica and I do not propose to take


any action. As far as I am aware, these gentlemen were not travelling officially on the business of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions.

Mr. Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both of these gentlemen are officials of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, and how does he expect trade union organisation to grow up in Jamaica in a free and open manner if he refuses the Jamaicans the assistance of international trade union officials from other countries, one of them a British subject?

Mr. Lyttelfon: It is not I who refuse them, it is the Government of Jamaica which has done so. There was a strike in one of the bauxite undertakings, and one of these gentlemen by name Mr. Zonarich came to Jamaica earlier in the year with the expressed object of creating havoc in the newly-developed bauxite industry. These are the reasons put forward by the Jamaican Government why he was asked on this occasion to refrain from addressing the workers during the progress of this particular strike.

Mr. Jones: rose—

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member must allow me to answer. He must not take it that this particular form of undertaking asked for is either of general application or is to be applied to everybody who comes in.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will my right hon. Friend be assured that the majority of the House will support the action of the Jamaican Government, with whom this sort of decision seems properly to rest?

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. Is not the rebuke that the Secretary of State for the Colonies addressed to my hon. Friend for rising before the question was answered, partly due to the fact that so far very few supplementary questions have been called from this side of the House?

Mr. Shinwell: With reference to the supplementary question addressed to the right hon. Gentleman, will he make it abundantly clear that, generally speaking, he would not condone the refusal of any of the Colonial Governments, so far as he has any responsibility, in refusing to permit the workers anywhere to be addressed by officials of a trade union?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am very glad that the right hon. Member addressed that supplementary question to me because I can give the assurance for which he asked. It also enables me to say what I want to make very clear in this connection, and that is that there is no criticism, either implied or specific, about the actions of the I.C.F.T.U.

Mr. Jones: Surely the right hon. Gentleman recognises that unless he takes some action to acquaint the Jamaican Government with the fact that its action does not meet with his approval, this may lead to further incidents so far as the trade union movement is concerned in Jamaica, which may inevitably drive it underground and into the hands of undesirable people?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Member is quite off base on this matter. Neither of these two gentlemen who were asked to sign these undertakings was there on the official trade union business. One of them was responsible for making highly-inflamatory speeches on a previous occasion, and it was for that reason he was asked to give these undertakings which, as I have said, have no general application and are not applied to all persons.

Antigua (Uncultivated Land)

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that there are still hundreds of acres of land lying uncultivated on the island of Antigua, West Indies; that large tracts of this land are arable, and suitable for growing sugar cane; and what steps he is taking to see that this land is brought back into cultivation with a view to increasing the production of sugar in the sterling area, and improving the earning capacity of the natives of this island.

Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot answer this Question in detail at this time but if the hon. Member will put it down again shortly I shall be able to give him the figures and information for which he asks.

British Guiana (Elections)

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the recent elections in British Guiana; and what Government will take office under the new Constitution.

Mr. Lyttelton: Of the 24 members elected to the House of Assembly, 18 belong to the Peoples' Progressive Party, two to the National Democratic Party and four are Independents. The elections were carried out in a smooth and orderly manner.
The Members of the House of Assembly will elect six of their number to be Ministers with portfolios. The new Government will consist of these six Ministers, a seventh Minister from the Upper Chamber, without portfolio, and three officials.

Mr. Robinson: Can my right hon. Friend say when the new Government will take office?

Mr. Lyttelton: My hon. Friend is pressing me a little further than he should. I cannot really say.

KENYA

Loyal Persons (Protection)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that some loyalists are leaving Kenya because they have no assurance of adequate protection from violence, even in the city of Nairobi, where another murder occurred last week; and if he will state what steps are being taken to protect loyalists, coloured and white, in Kenya.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am not aware that any loyalists are leaving Kenya in the circumstances alleged by the hon. and learned Member. Steps taken to protect loyal persons include the disposition of large forces of the Army and the police, the formation of African Home Guard units and resistance groups, and the concentration in guarded villages of labour forces on farms and in forest areas.

Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman take it from me that there are some loyalists who are forced to leave Kenya because of the atrocities, and does he realise that that will have a very important bearing on the re-settlement of Kenya after these troubles have been obviated?

Mr. Lyttelton: I do not know. Of course, I take it from the hon. and

learned Gentleman if he has some instances, but I think they must be very exceptional.

Mau Mau Oaths

Mr. Remnant: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what recent information has come into the possession of the Kenya police as to the wording of the Mau Mau oath; how far such wording contains directions as to the treatment to be meted out to those Kikuyu and others who may assist the whites; and whether he will state those directions.

Mr. Lyttelton: At least four forms of categories of Mau Mau oaths have now been uncovered. Apart from this fact, nearly all Mau Mau oaths include undertakings to burn houses, to kill and to commit or assist in other forms of violence against both Europeans and loyal Africans. It is noticeable that by the increasing bestiality of the third and fourth-oath-taking ceremonies the Mau Mau is attempting to drive groups of adherents outside the civilized and tribal pale. Thirty-nine persons in the Meru district have recently been convicted not merely of oath-taking but of attempting unnatural offences as part of that ceremony. Such practices are held in peculiar odium by the Kikuyu and other Tribes.
My hon. Friend may, however, be referring to recently captured orders issued by Mau Mau leaders in Nairobi. I will consult the Governor about their circulation, or extracts from them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Remnant: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider placing the other documents to which he has referred in the Library so that Members may see them, and can he say whether it is part of the policy of Mau Mau to inculcate people in crime?

Mr. Lyttelton: The only reason which makes me a little hesitant in giving an affirmative answer to the first part of the supplementary question is that these things are of such a foul nature that one hardly likes to put them in the Library; nevertheless I will do so. As to the second part of the supplementary question, it is a fact that some of the practices of Mau Mau are intended to inculcate, beyond doubt, people in murder.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that he is quite capable of looking at these pictures and hearing these descriptions but that we are not?

Mr. Lyltelton: I did not say anything of the kind. It is unhappily part of my responsibility as a Minister to have to look at photographs and also read subject matter which I should not like to burden other hon. Members with unless they feel that it is necessary. If they feel that they must have the information, it is open to them. I assure the House that it is not very pleasant but it is part of my duties to go into these matters.

Personal Assaults

Miss Lee: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) if the men identified as having raped a child of nine, Njeri d/o Njehia of Marmared Forest, near Thompsons Falls, on 27th December, 1952, have yet been brought to trial, before which court, and with what result;
(2) on what date and in which court, Kuria wa Ikumba was tried for beating and seriously injuring Wambui w/o Njoroge of Escaprement, Kiambu district. Kenya; what was the result of the trial; if he is aware that the father of Kuria wa Ikumba was beaten for trying to defend his daughter; and how many other instances of this kind, where members of the Home Guard have abused their authority, have been brought to his notice.

Mr. Lyttelton: I have asked the Governor for this information and will convey it to the hon. Member as soon as I receive it.

Mrs. White: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what investigation was made in the cases of Ngugi Muthama and Suphia Wanjiru, of which particulars have been sent to him; to which court and on what date these cases were brought; and with what result.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the case of Njeri, wife of Mbiyu Gitau, of Kiambaa, and her treatment by Home Guards in Kenya, of which particulars have been sent to him; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am asking the Governor for reports on these cases and will

let the hon. Ladies know as soon as I am able to answer their Questions.

Mrs. White: Can the right hon. Gentleman let us know whether there is a general direction in Kenya that, if Africans are brought into hospital suffering from the effects of personal attacks and violence, a report is made to the police, with instructions to take appropriate action?

Mr. Lyttelton: I could not give the hon. Lady a specific answer, but a circular drawing attention to this general subject has been issued, and I believe it would cover the point which the hon. Lady raised. If she would like me to pursue the matter further, I shall be happy to do so.

Emergency Expenditure

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total cost to date of the efforts to suppress the Mau Mau in Kenya.

Mr. Lyttelton: Emergency expenditure in Kenya totalled just over £1 million up to the end of February this year, and is currently estimated at £250,000 a month.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is time that he and the Government realised that reform is much cheaper than repression, and if the money had been spent prior to this outrage would not better use have been made of it?

Mr. Lyttelton: It is about time that the hon. Member and some of his hon. Friends below the Gangway realised that the first duty of Government is to maintain peace and order, whatever the situation may be.

Mr. Alport: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the sum which the Government has decided to grant to Kenya to help in reconstruction is as greatly welcomed in East Africa as it is here?

Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the sum includes the cost of sending a cruiser to Mombasa?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Gentleman, whose interest in these naval matters has been so acute, had better put the question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Hale: As the right hon. Gentleman has consistently failed to maintain order and has abolished law in Kenya, would it not be a good idea if he concentrated in the future on justice?

Mr. Lyttelton: It would be much better if the hon. Gentleman concentrated his attention upon trying to put supplementary questions in a less tendentious manner.

Commands to Stop (Language)

Mr. Femyhough: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give an assurance that all members of the security forces in Kenya with powers to stop Africans and having the power and authority to shoot Africans if they fail to stop are able to give their commands in language the Africans completely comprehend.

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir.

Bombing

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the circumstances under which aircraft dropped bombs in the Aberdare mountains in Kenya on 30th April; and to what extent it is proposed to continue such bombing operations.

Mr. Lyttelton: Harvard aircraft of the R.A.F. dropped bombs on a known hiding place of a terrorist gang in a prohibited area of the Aberdaires, and also machine-gunned the area. Such operations require the personal permission of the Director of Operations and will only be authorised against the Mau Mau where targets can be clearly identified, and when there is no risk to the law abiding.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any figures of casualties?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have no further report about this operation by the Harvard aircraft, but I shall have one shortly.

Mr. Manuel: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any steps were taken before the bombing took place to ascertain whether innocent people, such as women and children, were in the region?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. Gentleman could not have been listening to my answer. I said specifically that it was

a known hiding place of a terrorist gang in a prohibited area, which means that every precaution was taken to prevent any law-abiding people from being hurt by the raid.

NIGERIA (CONSTITUTIONAL SITUATION)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he proposes to take to meet the constitutional crisis arising from the united declaration of Dr. Nnamdi Azikwe, President of the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons, and of Mr. Obafemi Awolowo, leader of the Action Group, in favour of Nigerian self-government by 1956.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a further statement in respect of constitutional difficulties that have arisen in Nigeria.

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he will be able to make a further statement upon the Nigerian constitutional crisis.

Mr. Lyttelton: I would refer the hon. Members to the statement on the constitutional situation in Nigeria which I made on 22nd April, and to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the common declaration of the representatives of the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons and of the Action Group does not create a new situation, and if it is not very desirable that action should be taken in Nigeria so that the dangerous situation developing in Central Africa and East Africa does not extend to West Africa?

Mr. Lyttelton: That is introducing quite another matter by a side door. On this point I must ask for the indulgence of hon. Members and of the House generally. This is a very difficult and complicated situation, and my right hon. Friend—who is not here for reasons which we are all very sad to hear—has been into all these matters and will make a statement. I hope that hon. Members will not press for such a statement until at least the end of this month, because


there are events taking place which make it undesirable to probe too much at the moment.

Mr. Sorensen: While appreciating entirely the complexity of this very delicate situation, and understanding the reasons for the delay in any report which might be obtained from the right hon. Friend of the Secretary of State, may we take it that within a month we shall get a full report, together with recommendations to meet this unfortunate situation?

Mr. Lyttelton: I certainly hope that by the end of this month we can make a report on how things have developed. As hon. Members know—the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) in particular—the reason I ask for this delay is that there is a meeting of the Northern Legislature towards the end of the month part of which will be held with no European present, and I think that meeting should take place before I come to any of these questions.

Mr. J. Johnson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Action Group are likely to precipitate a similar deadlock in the Western House of Assembly at Ibadan, and will he also bear that in mind when he makes his report to the House in the near future?

Mr. Lyttelton: I cannot bear everything in mind. This is a very explosive situation, but I have not discovered that the unity of Nigeria is seriously threatened.

SINGAPORE AND MALAYA (BRITISH FILMS)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to restrictions on the showing of British films in Singapore and the Federation of Malaya; what is the function of the Parkinson Committee in respect of the British quota law affecting films; and, in view of the campaign to repress gangsterism, what action is being taken to secure the showing of a larger number of good British films and a less number of American and other films displaying the exploits of white gangsters.

Mr. Lyttelton: Apart from the ordinary film censorship, I know of no restrictions

on the showing of British films in Singapore and the Federation of Malaya. The Parkinson Committee has been set up to consider whether the present regulation requiring a quota of British films to be shown should be replaced and, if so, what other legislation should take its place. Undesirable scenes of gansterism in films of any origin can be cut by the censor.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these unfortunate films have been shown, and that there was a good deal of protest from the locality against their showing? In view of the unfortunate effects which these exhibitions had on the people in the district, cannot some action be taken so that a larger proportion of suitable films are shown rather than these being pushed forward by vested interests?

Mr. Lyttelton: As I have said, the matter of a larger quota of British films is now under consideration by the Committee. With regard to what the hon. Gentleman describes as undesirable scenes of gangsterism, I have examined the instructions to the censor and they seem to be very wisely drawn. Prima facie, I do not believe that there is very much to put right.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a special point of looking at this matter because of its significance?

Mr. Lyttelton: Certainly, and I shall also be glad if the hon. Gentleman will send me some information which he clearly has in mind, which I have not in front of me.

EAST AFRICA

Tanganyika (Sisal)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the reason for the fall in African-produced sisal for export in Tanganyika by over 50 per cent. in 1952; and what guidance is given by the agricultural department to Africans to assist them in the growing of this valuable crop.

Mr. Lyttelton: The fall in production is principally due to a fall in price from a peak of £246 per ton in 1951 to about £90 per ton by the end of 1952. I have no recent information with regard to the


second part of the Question, but it is generally considered that sisal is better cultivated on a large scale than as a peasant crop.

Mr. Hynd: As this is one of the more profitable crops would the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there is no withholding of licences from Africans who wish to cultivate it?

Mr. Lyttelton: As far as I know, it is true, of course, that most of the African cultivation is planted in hedges surrounding other crops, and owing to the complicated method concerned in decortication the peasant grain crops are generally of inferior quality.

Mr. Stokes: While not joining issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd), will the Minister not agree that it is quite absurd that sisal, which cost £16 per ton before the war, should ever have risen to the fantastically high prices which it achieved a few years ago?

Mr. Osborne: Would the Minister not add to that that little sisal was sold at these high figures, and that very little was sold over £150 a ton, as the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) should have known.

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proportion of the labour force on sisal estates in Tanganyika is on short-term labour contracts, and what proportion is family labour that has volunteered to settle on the estates.

Mr. Lyttelton: The information required is not available in the Colonial Office; I am consulting the Governor and will circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hynd: On the general principle of the thing, would the Secretary of State agree that it is not in the best interests of family life to encourage the recruitment of males to go to the plantations on short-term labour contracts.

Mr. Lyttelton: That is a question of a general nature on which I should not be asked to pronounce.

Economic and Political Reforms

Mr. Hale: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what official committees are now sitting and functioning

with regard to economic and political reforms in East Africa; and how many members of such committees are, respectively, of European, African and Asian origin.

Mr. Lyttelton: As my information on this subject is not complete, I am consulting the Governors of the East African territories, and will circulate the reply required which will be very long, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hale: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, but will he really bear in mind that there is a valuable body of Asian opinion representing a moderate influence in Kenya in matters of this kind which could play a very much bigger part, if called upon to do so, than is the case at the moment.

QUEEN'S TITLE

Mr. Manuel: asked the Prime Minister what representations he has received from Scotland arising from the approval of Her Majesty's Government of the form of the proclamation of the title of the Sovereign.

The Prime Minister (Sir Winston Churchill): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have received a number of representations from Scotland suggesting that Her Majesty should not have been advised to adopt the style "Elizabeth the Second." I made a very full statement on the matter in the House on 15th April. This seems to have satisfied many reasonable people.

Mr. Manuel: Does the Prime Minister agree that these representations indicate that there are strong sections of public opinion in Scotland which think that historical accuracy ought to have been adhered to, and that his recent statement has not allayed the concern of that section of public opinion in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry it has not been completely successful, but it certainly has not been disadvantageous.

Mr. Stokes: Can I ask the Prime Minister, as an ordinary Englishman who is not particularly interested one way or the other in this, what are the reasons why there is an objection to the title "Queen Elizabeth I of Scotland "?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, are you aware that this matter is sub judicel This is before the Court of Session in Scotland, and yesterday Lord Guthrie adjourned the case for a week. I submit, Sir, that these arguments are sub judice because it is before the courts in Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: I am greatly obliged to the hon. Member.

The Prime Minister: May I express my obligation also?

Sir T. Moore: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could you give us either your advice or comfort in regard to Question No. 45, and tell us exactly the penalties to which the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) are subject because of the fact that they have been discussing this question of the Queen's numeral while the matter is sub judicel

Mr. Speaker: They are subject to no penalty whatsoever except the displeasure of the House, if that is vented upon them.

CULTURAL AMENITIES (ASSISTANCE)

Dr. Srross: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider appointing a committee to recommend on the desirability of co-ordinating the various forms of assistance at present directed to fostering the fine arts and the cultural and artistic amenities of the general public, and the creation of a new Ministry for this purpose.

The Prime Minister: I do not think that such a committee would be helpful, and I have no intention of setting up another Government Department.

Dr. Stross: Whilst one accepts that it may be undesirable to set up another Government Department, is the Prime Minister aware that there are 250 local authority museums with an expenditure which totals only £150,000 gross, and that the Bowes-Lyon Museum, a great private gallery, is likely to close next year? Will he receive a deputation from Members of both sides of the House to put some further details to him on this matter?

The Prime Minister: I would certainly make arrangements for such a deputation to be received.

Mr. Dugdale: Will the Prime Minister at least assure us that he is not in agreement with the Minister of Education of a foreign country who stated that the only kind of culture he was interested in was horticulture, agriculture and physical culture?

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether that comes in as any point in our discussions.

KOREA TRUCE TALKS (U.N. REPRESENTATIVES)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now propose to the President of the United States of America that British representatives should be included in the truce talks at Panmunjom and that political, as well as military, representatives of both Britain and the United States of America should be present.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies given by my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on 4th May to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick), and others.

Mr. Wyatt: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a growing uneasiness in this country that the chance of getting a truce in Korea may be lost by the fact that on both sides there are soldiers dealing with these matters, which are highly political, in a very inflexible way? While not wishing to criticise the Americans, would it not be a great advantage to have a British soldier present, or a British civilian and some other civilians there, too, so that everybody in the free world may know that if these truce talks break down—and General Harrison has already started saying that they have-everything possible has been done to show that we did try to get a solution?

The Prime Minister: I do not think I wish to add at all to the answer I have given.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that there is a considerable body of experienced opinion at the United Nations and elsewhere which thinks that the attachment of some political advisers to the military in these negotiations might be advantageous, and whether it would not


be worth while discussing it with our American friends?

The Prime Minister: I think that is certainly a point which must be borne in mind on both sides of the ocean.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether in view of the reports now emerging on what is happening in Korea, he is really satisfied with the way the talks are going?

The Prime Minister: Well, Sir, hope springs eternal in the human breast.

Mr. Shinwell: But surely the right hon. Gentleman would agree, in view of what has just arisen in Korea, and the prospects having been somewhat dimmed, that it is desirable that the United Kingdom Government should take some action in the matter?

The Prime Minister: I can only assure the House that this matter is receiving most earnest attention. Really we all want the same thing, namely, a settlement of the prisoners' question without the dishonour of sending back men who would rather die than be repatriated. That is the evidence on which we are acting. Almost every alternative has been suggested, but there are some further alternatives that are now being considered as to the countries which should act. Then there is the difficulty as to whether a country which would be willing to act would be willing to receive the prisoners in bulk, and so on. I have certainly not abandoned hope that this must be settled and, if it were settled, it would, I hope, lead on to the winding up of the trouble.

Mr. Wyatt: Has the Prime Minister seen, in regard to the actual conduct of the talks, a remarkable despatch in the "Manchester Guardian" today, in which it is said quite clearly that unless some diplomats take part in the actual conduct of the truce talks, they are bound to collapse within the next few weeks?

The Prime Minister: Was the hon. Gentleman the author of the despatch?

ROYAL NAVY

Aircraft

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when American Avenger aircraft were first used in the

Fleet Air Arm; and when their use was discontinued after the war.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas): American Avenger aircraft came into operational use in the Royal Navy in February, 1943, and were withdrawn from general use in April, 1946.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that five years ago the re-introduction of this aircraft was never contemplated by his Department, and is he not satisfied that its re-introduction is a severe condemnation of the procedure by which the Admiralty acquires its aircraft for the Fleet Air Arm?

Mr. Thomas: I do not agree with that at all. The Avenger was used as a torpedo-bomber in 1947 but has been modified for anti-submarine work. It was discarded in 1947 because there was a great drain on dollars in buying spare parts, but we have now received a supply of these aircraft from America under the Mutual Security arrangements to help us until the Gannet comes along.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these aircraft, although they are very sound, are undoubtedly old from the point of view of years, and will he take a strong line in order to see that the Fleet Air Arm gets the type of aircraft which undoubtedly it deserves.

Mr. Thomas: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am taking the strongest possible line. However I deprecate what he says about the Avenger because it is in use in the United States Navy at the present moment.

Captain Ryder: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the name or number allocated to the new swept wing twin-jet fighter being produced for the Royal Navy.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: No name has yet been decided upon for this aircraft, nor is it possible at present to reveal any further particulars.

Captain Ryder: Could my right hon. Friend indicate whether any progress has been made in this matter?

Mr. Thomas: Oh, yes, very definitely.

Captain Ryder: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty by what process he keeps himself informed as to the views and suggestions that may be put forward by pilots with flying or operational experience of our latest aircraft.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: All officers and men in the Royal Navy are encouraged to put forward, through the normal Service channels, any views or suggestions that they may have. It is laid down that, if the originator so wishes, his ideas and suggestions should invariably be forwarded to the Admiralty. In the particular case of naval pilots, conferences are also held periodically in the Home Air Command. These are attended by as many pilots as possible and also by representatives from the Admiralty. Officers with flying and operational experience of our latest aircraft are also employed in appropriate posts in the Admiralty. They keep in flying practice while so employed and in touch with the air squadrons and carriers in which these new aircraft are in use.

Captain Ryder: I am glad to hear that. May I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that official expressions of opinion on some of our latest aircraft appear to differ substantially from the views held by the pilots who have to fly them?

Mr. Thomas: All I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend is that the views of pilots reach the Admiralty.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, having served for some time in this Service, my source of information differs in its opinion from that of my right hon. Friend, and it does appear that his usual channels, like other usual channels, have become clogged at times?

Mr. Thomas: I can assure my hon. Friend that anybody who brings forward suggestions, as I said in my answer, has the right to have them invariably forwarded to the Admiralty.

Dockyard Workers (Pensionable Service)

Brigadier Clarke: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why only half time worked in the dockyard prior to 1949 can be allowed for pension; and what

steps are to be taken in the near future to remedy this situation.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The Superannuation Act, 1949, which governs the pensions of all Government civil employees, provides that unestablished service from 14th July, 1949, counts in full for superannuation purposes on establishment. Under earlier legislation unestablished service before that date is counted on establishment to the extent of half only. I am not aware of any projected legislation on this matter.

Brigadier Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend realise that many dockyard workers who have served 30 years or more in Her Majesty's dockyards can count only four years in full, and that this is a great hardship to them? I hope he can improve on what was done in six years of Socialism.

Mr. Thomas: That is a question which concerns all Departments, and therefore it is one for the Treasury and for the Staff Side and the trade unions to raise.

Dockyard Appointments

Mr. Albu: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty who has been appointed to the post of civilian personnel officer on the staff of the Director of Dockyards.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: This appointment has not yet been filled, but I hope to be in a position to invite applications before very long.

Mr. Albu: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that in the meantime there will be no further appointment of an engineer-captain to this post?

Mr. Thomas: Certainly.

Mr. Albu: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty who has been appointed to the new post of Dockyard Deputy Superintendent (Industrial); and in which dockyard.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: An Assistant Director of Naval Construction, with previous dockyard experience, has been selected for this appointment at Chatham Dockyard.

Mr. Albu: Would the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to inform the House in some way what the effects of this experiment are and, in view of the


fact that now the word "daring" has apparently taken the place of "dreadnought," and "destroyer" would the political chiefs of the Admiralty take their courage in both hands and deal with this extremely inefficient organisation?

Mr. Thomas: As I said in my reply, I am dealing with it and an Assistant Director of Naval Construction has been appointed.

Admiralty Organisation (Committee's Reports)

Mr. Albu: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when he expects to receive the report of the Committee on the Review of Admiralty Organisation.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The Committee has made two Reports: a third report will be made later.

Mr. Albu: Can the First Lord say whether as a result of the Report there has been any re-organisation of the Admiralty, and has it had any effect on the management of Her Majesty's Dockyards?

Mr. Thomas: There has been an internal Admiralty inquiry, which of course takes into review the headquarters of the dockyard organisation. Yes, I think I can say it has had some effect.

Mr. Stokes: Is the First Lord aware that in the trade Her Majesty's dockyards are considered to be notoriously inefficient?

Mr. Thomas: I really cannot accept that statement from the right hon. Member.

Mr. Stokes: They are.

POST OFFICE

Officials (Power of Entry)

Mr. Gower: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many Post Office officials have power to enter premises without production of a justice's warrant.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): None, except under Defence Regulations.

Sub-Offices (Money Order Facilities)

Commander Scott-Miller: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what extra expense and staff are involved in providing money order facilities in a village sub-post office where a postmaster and postmistress are already employed.

Mr. Gammans: The answer depends on the circumstances of the office. If my hon. and gallant Friend will let me know what particular office he has in mind, I will make inquiry.

WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Sponsored Television (Controlling Body)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what steps he has taken to set up the controlling body envisaged in paragraph 9 of the Government White Paper on Broadcasting published in May, 1952, Command Paper No. 85507.

Mr. Gammans: My noble Friend's statement in another place on 2nd April and my reply on the same date to the Adjournment debate raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) indicate the progress made towards setting up this body.

B.B.C. Services (Development)

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether the current investment programme of Her Majesty's Government permits the British Broadcasting Corporation to proceed with the completion of the erection of low-power stations and the development of very high frequency.

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what planning investment or other restrictions are placed by Her Majesty's Government on the development by the British Broadcasting Corporation of television broadcasting.

Mr. Gammans: The extension of television broadcasting to new areas has hitherto been held up on the instructions of the Government on capital investment grounds. This matter is now being reviewed and an announcement will be made shortly.
The question of v.h.f. must await the decisions taken when the Television Advisory Committee has reported on this point.

Mr. Edwards: I take it that there will be no holding of the B.B.C. back in this matter in order to give advantage to the commercial friends of hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Gammans: I shall be dealing with that question later on.

Sir H. Roper: While I have no desire to delay the development of television, will my hon. Friend impress on the B.B.C. that 60 per cent. of the farms in this country have no electricity and cannot, therefore, receive television, and that for them it is far more important that there should be satisfactory sound reception than television?

Mr. Gammans: The question of provision of electricity is something for which neither the B.B.C. nor I have responsibility.

Mr. Bowen: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the Corporation that they still have not provided an efficient sound service, nor any television service, throughout a large area in West Wales?

Mr. Gammans: That I think is true, but I do not think it comes within the ambit of this Question.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether the present financial resources of the British Broadcasting Corporation are adequate for the completion of the low-power station programme and the development of very high frequency during the present financial year.

Mr. Gammans: I understand that if prices remain reasonably stable, the Corporation's resources are at present sufficient to complete the five permanent low-power television stations, but in any case the work could not be finished in the present financial year.

Mr. Hector Hughes: If the resources of the B.B.C. are sufficient for that purpose, why cannot the Postmaster-General provide a television service for Aberdeen, a most important city?

Mr. Gammans: The erection of the Aberdeen station, as the hon. and learned

Member will remember, was held up by the previous Government and that policy has been maintained, up to now at any rate, by the present Government.

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will give an assurance that the British Broadcasting Corporation will be given freedom from restrictions to develop adequate sound and television broadcasting, including very high frequency, before any licence is issued for commercial stations.

Mr. Gammans: The development of both B.B.C. services and commercial television must always be subject to the amount of capital resources which the Government feel justified from time to time in devoting to this form of entertainment. As regards priorities, there is no change in the Government policy as set out in the White Paper on Broadcasting (Cmd. 8550).

Mr. Edwards: Do we understand from that reply that no commercial licences will be granted this year?

Mr. Gammans: No, I cannot give that assurance, but from the assurances given in the White Paper that the B.B.C. should have the first claim on resources, I should imagine that that is a fair deduction.

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the nature of the development programme of the British Broadcasting Corporation for the current year.

Mr. Gammans: The programme approved for 1953 includes further work on the low-power sound broadcasting stations provided to improve coverage; temporary television stations at Pontop Pike and Belfast; and improvements in studios and in equipment.

Television Advisory Committee (Report)

Captain Orr: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he has yet received the report of the Television Advisory Committee: and on what: date he expects to publish it.

Mr. Gammans: My noble Friend expects to receive a report within a week, and he hopes to publish it shortly afterwards.

TELEPHONE SERVICE

Macaulay Exchange

Mr. Gibson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when he expects the enlargement of the Macaulay telephone exchange to be completed; and how long it will be before the large number of new subscribers waiting for telephones can expect to be connected.

Mr. Gammans: The extension will be brought into service about the end of this month, after testing is completed. Of the 580 applicants at present waiting for telephones in this area, about half will be connected within the next month or two.

Mr. Gibson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that news will give very great satisfaction to many people in that area who have been waiting two years for a telephone?

North Berwick

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications for new telephones in North Berwick are outstanding; and what are the reasons for the delay before they are installed.

Mr. Gammans: Fifty-eight applications were outstanding on 30th April, 1953. Most of these are waiting for additional equipment at the exchange, which will be provided towards the end of the year.

CORONATION FILMS, CANADA (R.A. F. TRANSPORT)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Undersecretary of State for Air whether he is aware that arrangements have been made either to loan a Royal Air Force Canberra aircraft to the United States Air Force to fly films of the Coronation to the United States of America on behalf of United States companies, or for the Royal Air Force to do so direct on their behalf, thereby delivering films to the United States of America ahead of British companies, who have not been

offered the same facilities; and why this preference is being shown to the United States film industry to the disadvantage of the British.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): There has never been any intention to use Royal Air Force aircraft to fly cinematograph films of the Coronation across the Atlantic on behalf of United States film companies. At the request of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, however, arrangements have been made with the British Broadcasting Corporation for Canberra aircraft of Bomber Command, in co-operation with the Royal Canadian Air Force, to fly television recordings of the Coronation to Canada in order that the ceremony may be televised from Montreal on the evening of Coronation Day. I understand that these recordings will also be made available to United States television networks through the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

Mr. Stokes: Does the Minister mean that there is no preference whatsoever being given to American companies over British companies who desire to have at least the same facilities for getting their films across the Atlantic as are now being offered to the Americans?

Mr. Ward: The Royal Air Force are flying television films to Canada at the request of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and they are being made available to the United States television networks under their own arrangements.

Mr. Stokes: But that is most unsatisfactory. Does the Minister mean that he has received no applications from British television companies to send films across and that he has received an application only from Canadian television companies?

Mr. Ward: Yes.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can my hon. Friend say whether in the films that will be flown to the United States any mention will be made of the British contribution to the Coronation ceremony?

KENYA HOME GUARD POST (ATTACK)

Mr. Paget: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make with regard to the massacre of a Kikuyu Home Guard camp in the North Tetuttetu location on Monday last.

Mr. Lyttelton: I have received a brief report of this outrage which reads:
On Sunday night at about 10 p.m. a gang of about 200 Mau Mau attacked the Gatumbiro Kikuyu camp in Githingu sub-location of North Tetu in the Nyeri district. One of the sentries fired his rifle to give the alarm but the Mau Mau were in the camp before the occupants were able to come out. The Kikuyu guards attempted to escape but were slashed and shot as they came out of the huts. Eight were slashed to death and three were taken prisoner. The Mau Mau then set fire to the huts and 11 Kikuyu guards were burnt to death. One Mau Mau was killed by the guards' fire. One 303 rifle belonging to headman Stephans was stolen.
Since I drafted this reply I have received another telegram from the Governor which the hon. and learned Gentleman might like me to read. It is addressed to me:
As you are aware, defensive posts are at present being built in each location and sub-locational area. The Gatumbiro post had not been completed and was only partially wired. The District Officer in charge had instructed the local Kikuyu guards to patrol from the area of their own homes and not to utilise this post until completed. The Kikuyu guards, who are daily getting more confident, disregarded these instructions and utilised the post. The attack took place at dead of night when heavy rain was falling. The scntry was alert and fired to give the alarm, but the post was entered before the Kikuyu guards were able to get out of their hut. The nearest military post was approximately four miles away. Firing was heard and the alarm system worked but, as the area was inundated with rain, it was impossible to get to the post quickly. The chain of command is District Commissioner, District Officer, Chief, Headman and Local Sub-locational Home Guard Commander in close liaison with the military and police at each level.

Mr. Paget: May we take it that the Home Guard posts, at least from now on, will not be used unless they are provided with proper wire defences to prevent this

sort of surprise? Can the right hon. Gentleman say further what action is to be taken to improve discipline here, as I understand that those people were at the post in direct contradiction to orders?

Mr. Lyttelton: I can only say that these instructions were quite specific and they were expected to be obeyed. As I have said, the morale of these particular Home Guards was very high and they disregarded the instructions. On the general matter of the organisation of the Home Guard, that is improving very rapidly, and we are sending out a distinguished officer with great experience of this type of operation to help in their organisation.

Mr. Paget: Does the right hon. Gentleman imply that disobedience to orders is evidence of high morale?

Mr. Lyttelton: The hon. and learned Gentleman really must not put into my mouth words which I never used. I said that one of the reasons they disregarded the instructions was that they felt able to go patrolling, although they were told not to do so.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any steps are being taken to secure the liberation of the men who were captured?

Mr. Lyttelton: Oh, yes.

Mr. J. Hynd: The Minister has said that there were 11 of these Kikuyu Home Guards killed and that one rifle was stolen. Does that mean that there was not more than one rifle in the place? Will he give the House some information on how the men were armed? Unless they are given some means of adequately protecting themselves the whole system will break down.

Mr. Lyttelton: I have not the information for which the hon. Member asks. I only received the telegram a few minutes ago, and I must confine myself to the fact that one rifle was stolen.

Mr. Hynd: Will the Minister get the information?

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House, on business, whether his attention has been called to the drafting of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, which we understand prevents general Amendments being considered? Will he explain the reasons for departing from the usual practice?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crook-shank): I am, of course, aware of the form of this Bill. It has the usual long Title, and the only difference in the Bill from those of other years is that no specific Amendments to the Acts have been included. The House will be aware that the Select Committee although they have made great progress with this formidable task, have by no means finished their work and have themselves recommended in a Special Report that no attempt should be made, by piecemeal amendment of the Acts, to deal with their recommendations to date. In those circumstances, the Government felt that it would be undesirable to put down routine Amendments of their own this year. Whether any particular Amendment which hon. Members may desire to put down would be in order is. of course, a matter for the Chair to decide.

Mr. Attlee: Might it not have been better to have taken the usual course in a matter of this kind and to have mentioned the matter to the Opposition through the usual channels?

Mr. Crookshank: If the Opposition feel aggrieved I am sorry about it, but this is exactly the same form as is usually adopted. Last year it was different because there were certain Amendments put down which had to be covered by the long Title, but if the right hon. Gentleman cares to look back to the time when he was responsible for affairs, he will find that this was the normal Title in each of these years, and, in spite of that, it is quite possible to have Amendments inserted into the Bill.

Mr. Shinwell: Is not the drawing up of this Bill unprecedented? I am not referring to the Title at all but to the drawing up of the Bill in such a form as to

prevent any Amendments of any kind being put upon the Paper. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman said that the question of whether specific Amendments would be permitted was a matter for the Chair. That is unprecedented in the case of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill. May I ask further whether it is not a false assumption on the part of the Government that because a Select Committee has been appointed to deal with certain aspects of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill there should be a prohibition of any Amendments of a kind which do not come within the purview of the Select Committee? In all the circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the form of this Bill so as to enable specific Amendments to be put upon the Paper if the Opposition regard them as necessary?

Mr. Crookshank: I am sorry if there is any confusion. Whether Amendments are in order or not has, as I have said, always depended on the Chairman's interpretation of what is within the scope of the Title. This is exactly the same Title as has been used in years past, with the exception of last year and one other year. The same Title was used in 1948, 1949 and 1951. That did not prevent hon. Members from putting down Amendments, and, if the Chair called them, having them debated; and if the House accepted them they were inserted into the Bill.
The reason why it is necessary to have this particular, though usual, Title this year, is because the Government, having decided not to put down any Amendments of their own, could hardly bring in a Bill with a Title to make Amendments in the body of the Bill, when there were in fact no Amendments. But that does not affect the rights of the hon. Members opposite —I have taken the fullest possible advice on this matter—any more this year than the corresponding Title did when it was employed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite in their term of office.

Mr. Bevan: This matter was the subject of an undertaking given last year, in view of which the Opposition withdrew all Amendments to the Bill in order that the Select Committee should be appointed. Would it not have been much more courteous to let the Opposition know the form the Bill was to take this year.


rather than to take action without informing the Opposition at all? In view of the fact, also, that the undertaking cannot be carried out this year—for no reason for which the Government is responsible, but because the Select Committee has not completed its findings—the House may still feel that it wanted to amend the Bill— [HON. MEMBERS: "It can."]—really hon. Members must wait in this matter. When we draft Amendments to the Bill we may find ourselves once more in collision with the Chair, and that could easily have been avoided if the right hon. Gentleman had first consulted the Opposition.

Mr. Crookshank: I have explained the position exactly with regard to the Bill, and if the right hon. Gentleman says he has never seen a Bill like this—he says it last night—it really is not so because he will have done if he has looked at the Bills drafted during the time he was a Cabinet Minister. As I say, if the Opposition feel that in adopting this very normal and ordinary practice I have been in error in not having told them ahead of time, I am sorry. In point of fact, it is, of course, a purely normal Bill. We acted on the advice of the Select Committee, which is composed of hon. Members on both sides of the House. Naturally we assumed that recommendations from so weighty a body would be acceptable. If they are not acceptable to the whole House they have certainly been accepted by the Government.

Mr. Marlowe: Can my right hon. Friend say whether on these three previous occasions when the Socialist Party were in power and introduced an identical Bill, they bothered to consult the Opposition?

Mr. Crookshank: I cannot charge my memory with that, but it is such a normal matter that I should not think so.

Mr. Attlee: There was no reason to. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not understand. The Bill was drafted with Amendments in each case.

Mr. Wigg: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that on Second Reading of this Bill those who wish to speak have to do so within a very narrow limit. If this Bill goes forward in the form in which the Government are presenting it, whether they intend it or not, the effect will be to gag the Opposition, or any hon.

Member who wishes to say anything on this Bill, both on Second Reading and in the Committee stage. Is it not perfectly true that the Government, though probably not aware of it, have, by omitting the words "to amend" from the Title of the Bill, made it impossible for any hon. Member to put down general Amendments?

Mr. Crookshank: I am advised that that is not the case, and that it is still open to hon. Members to put down Amendments. As for gagging the House, the Government certainly have not the slightest intention of doing anything of the kind. I would remind hon. Members that if there is a Bill with no Amendments in fact there cannot be a Title asking for amending powers when the Bill is introduced, irrespective of what may happen afterwards. On the introduction of the Bill, if the words "to amend" are in the Title there must be some Amendments in the body of the Bill. There are none in this Bill and it is therefore obviously impossible to put that in the Title. But I am advised it does not prevent Amendments being put down and carried, if they are in order.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of what has been said by the Leader of the House. As I understand it, the custom of the House is, and always has been so far as I can recall, that the Second Reading of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill is a matter which comes under your supervision, and there is usually no debate. The debate is left to the Committee stage. I do not know whether you can offer any guidance, or whether this is a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means, who, on the occasion of the Committee stage, would have to be consulted about whether specific Amendments may be accepted. But I do not know if you can give us any guidance at this stage.

Mr. Speaker: What the right hon. Gentleman has said about Second Reading is perfectly true. The limits of debate on that occasion are always very narrow indeed, and are normally confined to the question of whether we are to continue to have a disciplined Army and Air Force. As to Amendments that may be accepted on the Committee stage, it would be wrong for me to express any


opinion, as it would be for the Chairman to exercise his discretion about that.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Further to that point of order. If the statement of the Leader of the House is correct, that if and when Amendments are submitted to this Bill in Committee they will be accepted and if you, Mr. Speaker, cannot indicate that such a statement is correct, how can the correctness of that statement be questioned? Can it be questioned here or in Committee?

Mr. Speaker: I think that what the Leader of the House said was correct, that if Amendments are in order they may be accepted. But I must decline to express any opinion about Amendments which I have not seen, or to give any Ruling in advance about the decision of the Chairman. It would be quite wrong for me to do so.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on the Local Government Superannuation Bill exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Crookshank.]

BARRISTERS (LICENSING, &c.)

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to vest in the Bar Council the powers to license barristers practising at the Bar in England and Wales and to deal with all disciplinary matters connected with the aforesaid.
I understand that this Bill is attracting attention in some legal quarters. What it proposes to do is to institute in the legal profession the same kind of administrative set-up that exists in the medical profession, where the disciplining of medical practitioners and the licensing of medical practitioners—

Mr. Charles Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Your predecessor on one occasion asked for order on the ground that he could not hear. May I ask, with respect, whether you could hear what my hon. Friend has been saying?

Mr. Speaker: As a matter of fact I could hear. But I would ask hon. Members to keep order for the hon. Member's Ten Minutes Rule Bill.

Mr. Donnelly: May I come quickly to the proposals I wish to make? First of all, it is that in future the licensing of barristers shall be handed over to the General Bar Council and that disciplinary matters shall come to them as well. At present, these powers are in the hands of the Inns of Court and the benchers of the Inns of Court exercise them, having been handed them down from time immemorial. It is a very old profession and this custom has grown up. No statutory powers are given for these disciplinary powers to the benchers. We are dealing with something of substance and importance and with a very old profession; one may argue, that it is one of the oldest professions—if I may say so, without offence, the oldest profession in the world.
There is a certain amount of doubt about the way it is being exercised at the moment. A great deal of publicity has been given to the case of a barrister who has been suspended after a political speech made on a political platform—Mr. John Parris. I want to quote from the "Yorkshire Post" of 19th January. This is what he is quoted as saying in a speech


he made at Bradford on 18th January. It was an attack on the Lord Chief Justice and the latter's views on flogging. It was:
At the moment Lord Goddard is rather like that cat with two heads which figured in a recent law-suit. One of his heads is that of a judge, the other head is that of a politician. (I have to stroke the whiskers on one of those heads, but the whiskers on the other I am entitled to twist.) What I now say is said as a politician about Lord Goddard the politician. I cannot help thinking it is undesirable that anyone holding high judicial office places himself in a position where he moist be criticised for political utterances. The public are entitled to think that anyone who holds high judicial office will be a model of courtesy, firmness, fairness and impartiality. I cannot express the universal consensus of legal opinion about the manner in which the Lord Chief Justice now conducts criminal trials —I cannot say anything about that. But I am entitled to say many of his recent utterances in the House of Lords are sensational and untruthful nonsense.
The relevance of this point of Mr. Parris to the whole question is this: it is an illustration of how the powers are exercised and the need for reform. What happened in the present instance was—

Mr. Frederick Elwyn Jones: On a point of order. Am I not right in thinking that the case to which my hon. Friend referred is in a certain sense still sub judice in that the member of the Bar to whom he referred has still certain rights of appeal? If my hon. Friend has information that this member of the Bar does not propose to exercise those rights, clearly the matter is not sub judice, but it seems to me that it is a matter which needs consideration before it is further discussed on the Floor.

Mr. Speaker: I thought I heard the Attorney-General the other day say that that was the case. If so, it would be wrong for the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) to pursue this particular case. The Bill has a general title and if he addressed himself to the arguments for it I think that that would be better.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order. Am I right in supposing that nothing can be regarded as sub judice unless it is the subject of legal proceedings in a court with judicial procedure? No one has ever claimed that any court in this country has any jurisdiction in this matter.

Mr. Speaker: I think that if it is not an appeal to the court it does not matter. If it is some sort of administrative appeal

it is on a different footing. At the same time, I think the principle holds good that when the hon. Member is seeking to introduce a Bill for a specific purpose, in a short speech, he should direct most of his remarks at least to the reasons for the Bill and not to a particular case.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): Further to that point of order. To avoid any misunderstanding—I am sure the House would not wish to be misled in any way—by ancient custom there is an appeal in these cases to a special legal tribunal consisting of the Lord Chancellor and all the judges of the High Court. There have been a number of such appeals and there is not the slightest doubt about their existence, for under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act of 1925 there is special provision for the judges to sit in matters where they sit by custom. That is the best example of it.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: A tribunal consisting of a number of legal gentlemen is not necessarily the definition of a legal tribunal. It is not the same thing at all. It would be a very serious matter if the course of an administration appeal denied the House the right of legislating about the subject of the appeal until the appeal had been heard. It would frustrate our proceedings. In the past, the term "sub judice" has applied only to juridical proceedings and not to secular proceedings, no matter what process of appeal might be held to be reasonable in the circumstances. Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) is entitled to adduce this instance as a piece of evidence for his Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the Attorney-General for explaining the nature of the tribunal, which I did not carry in my mind. If it is a tribunal of the Lord Chancellor and Her Majesty's judges and if legislative sanction has been given in the Supreme Court of Judicature Act for them continuing to sit, it seems to me that the matter would be sub judice. Therefore, while it is not out of order for the hon. Member to explain his Motion for leave to introduce the Bill, I think I must rule that to use this case is not advisable in these circumstances.

Mr. Donnelly: Mr. Parris has explained that he is not exercising his right of appeal, so that this matter does not arise,


Sir. All these obstructions are only holding up the procedure. What I was seeking to do was to use it simply as an illustration of the unfortunate way in which the present situation operates.
What has happened is that this man was convicted on the evidence of a newspaper report. Here is the evidence which has been handed to the benchers of his Inn following an editorial which appeared in the newspaper subsequent to the report urging the legal profession to look into his conduct. Mr. Parris was brought before the benchers of the Inn and charged on three charges, and the charges were heard in secret. Nobody knows who sat on that case and nobody outside knew beforehand what the charges were. He was suspended for four months, which is a heavy penalty for a successful practising junior, and nobody knew what that was for.
The whole situation has been given an unfortunate appearance by the fact that the "Yorkshire Post" is a political opponent of Mr. Parris in Bradford. It is associated with the political party which was formerly the friend of the Lord Chief Justice himself and the whole impression that one gains is that it may well have been a political case.

The Attorney-General: In the interests of accuracy it should be made clear that according to the publication of the evidence which has since taken place it was not the "Yorkshire Post" report but the "Manchester Guardian" report.

Mr. Donnelly: The hon. and learned Gentleman is misinformed. He would also do well to address himself to the matter, for what I am seeking to do is to protect the benchers of the Inns of Court and make it appear that they have been acting fairly. That cannot appear to be the case while there is a certain amount of innuendo about the whole thing. It is open to anybody to see who are the benchers of the Inns of Court, and the first commoner we see is the right hon. W. S. Churchill. We look further and we see the name of the right hon. Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, and, looking further again, see the right hon. John Brooks Selwyn Lloyd, and the list leaves my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross) as the only man to carry the red banner of Socialism.
What I am anxious to do here is to explain this quite clearly. Here is a Bill which is seeking only to protect people who practice in this old and honourable profession, and which is only seeking to say that not only should justice be done behind closed doors, but that it should manifestly appear to be done. No kind of slur or political imputation is made against the benchers of the Inns of Court, because many of us share the same views on the Lord Chief Justice as Mr. Parris, but we are precluded from discussing them now. It is a matter for a substantive Motion on another occasion.
Nobody in this country, even though he be the Lord Chief Justice himself, may claim that he is immune from political attack or criticism on a political platform, and he certainly has no right to claim it if he indulges in political discussion on controversial matters which are before Parliament. These are ancient heritages which have grown up, and the general impression which exists at the moment would be removed if the power was taken from the Inns of Court and handed over to the General Council of the Bar, provided it is properly reformed, because there is a good deal of doubt in people's minds. In narrow and dusty rooms people are charged, tried and judged without any kind of public scrutiny on the matter at all. The British legal system is beyond reproach, and it is very important that the main pillar of that legal system—the barristers—should also be beyond reproach in the conduct of their own affairs.
In these circumstances, I think this matter is such that it is the public duty of the House to give some consideration to it, and to say that not only shall justice be done but that it manifestly shall appear to be done in what may become a narrow kind of vested interest, which may well have dangerous implications for the future constitutional position of the country and the whole question of freedom of political speech extending to anybody, whoever they may be, even including members of the Bar.

Mr. R. T. Paget: A good many of my hon. Friends, practically all of them, in fact, are members of trade unions. I do not know how they would feel if a Member who did not belong to their union, who was not of their kind, came along here to propose a


Private Member's Bill to alter the domestic rules of their union. I think they might well be concerned if they had not been approached themselves or if there had been no kind of consultation with the trade or profession involved.

Mr. Frederick Lee: On a point of order. Is it not a fact that trade unions and their activities are subjects which can be discussed through the Ministry of Labour, and that they are registered under the Trade Unions Act? If my hon. and learned Friend would agree to place the barristers in that position, we would be satisfied.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Paget: Whether that is a point of order or not, Sir, I wonder how my hon. Friend would feel if I were to bring along a Private Member's Bill to alter the rules of the Engineers' Union.
Now let us turn to this Bill and to the material point. I have pointed out that there have been no consultations with members of the profession. I have discussed it with a good many, but I have not yet found one who would support this proposal. I do not believe that there is one barrister in 100 who would do so. For my part, I can only say that I am happy to entrust my reputation and my professional honour to the benchers of my Inn. They are a body to whom the Lord Chancellor and all the judges of the King's Bench and of the High Court have delegated powers. These are powers exercised by them and delegated by the judges, and the benchers themselves consist of the greatest judges, not only of this country, but of the Commonwealth. I can say that, for my part, I am very happy indeed to leave my honour in their hands, and that I do not know any tribunal for which I would have a greater respect.
I would be as loth to entrust my professional reputation to the Bar Council as I would be to entrust it to any other elected judicature. Election is not the way to make judges, and elected bodies should not exercise judicial power. Indeed, the Bar Council, in their wisdom, have deliberately refrained from taking any powers to judge these matters, and these would be powers which would be thrust upon them.
Finally, it is the rule of our profession that we may not publicly criticise judges for what they do on the judicial bench.

Mr. S. Silverman: Why not?

Mr. Paget: My hon. Friend asks "Why not?" The reason is because if. after we lost a case, we proceeded to attack the judge in the newspapers, the relations between Bar and Bench would be impossible. It is a necessary rule for the proper functioning of the court.

Mr. Silverman: I wonder how far my hon. and learned Friend wants to go with that proposition. It is, of course, common ground that, during the conduct of a trial, it would be quite improper—

Mr. Speaker: Under the Ten Minutes Rule, all that Mr. Speaker is allowed to hear are two speeches, from the hon. Members proposing and opposing the Motion to grant leave to introduce the Bill, and I must stick to that Rule.

Mr. Silverman: I hope I am not doing anything wrong. I rose with the consent of my hon. and learned Friend to ask for a further explanation of something he was saying, because he was saying something that seems to go a very long way further than anybody else has gone, namely that it is not appropriate to criticise the conduct of a judge, even after a case is over. That is a startling proposition, and I thought I was entitled to ask my hon. and learned Friend whether he really meant that.

Mr. Paget: The answer is "Yes." So far as members of the Bar are concerned, it has always been the rule of our profession that we may not criticise the judges for what they do on the Bench in public. That is the rule, and it is against that rule that Mr. Parris offended. I quite agree that many of my hon. Friends will have a great deal of sympathy for what Mr. Parris said in regard to Lord Goddard. as a Member of another place, expressing political views. That may be so, but he went further than that and criticised him, and is reported to have expressed the opinion of the profession as a whole about Lord Goddard as a judge.
In doing that, he certainly was not expressing the opinion of the profession as a whole, for, whatever one might think of Lord Goddard as a politician, I think I am speaking for almost the whole of my profession in saying that


there has very seldom been a finer judge. That is true, and, Mr. Parris having offended against that rule, and, as I understand it, having admitted that he had so offended, cannot now claim that he was not dealt with according to the rules.

I certainly hope that this House will not grant leave to introduce this Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12.

The House divided: Ayes, 113; Noes, 210.

Division No 168.]
AYES
[4.10 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Paling, W. T. (Dewsbury)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Hayman, F. H.
Pearson, A.


Bence, C. R.
Hobson, C. R.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Benson, G.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Popplewell, E.


Beswick, F.
Hubbard, T. F.
Price, Joseph (Westhoughton)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Proctor, W. T.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pryde, D. J.


Blackburn, F.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rankin, John


Bowles, F. G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brockway, A. F.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Short, E. W.


Burke, W. A.
Kenyon, C.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Carmichael, J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Clunie, J.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Coldrick, W.
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Sorensen, R. W.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
McGhee, H. G.
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McInnes, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Deer, G.
McLeavy, F.
Sylvester, G. O.


Delargy, H. J.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Donnelly, D. L.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Manuel, A. C.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Mason, Roy
Watkins, T. E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hellish, R. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Follick, M.
Mikardo, lan
Wheeldon, W. E.


Foot, M. M.
Monslow, W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Forman, J. C.
Morley, R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mort, D. L.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Grey, C. F.
Murray, J. D.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Nally, W.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)



Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Orbach, M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamilton, W. W.
Oswald, T.
Mr. George Craddock and


Hargreaves, A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Mr. Fernyhough.




NOES


Alport, C. J. M.
Cary, Sir Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Champion, A. J.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Channon, H.
Foster, John


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Cole, Norman
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Baldwin, A. E.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Banks, Col. C.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Godber, J. B.


Barber, Anthony
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Gower, H. R.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Crouch, R. F.
Gridley, Sir Arnold


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Grimond, J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Davidson, Viscountess
Hale, Leslie


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Harden, J. R. E.


Bossom, A. C.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Bowen, E. R.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Braine, B. R.
Donner, P. W.
Harvey, lan (Harrow, E.)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Heald, Sir Lionel


Brooke, Henry (Hampslead)
Drayson, G. B.
Higgs, J. M. C.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Drewe, C.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Billiard, D. G.
Duthie, W. S.
Holman, P.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Burden, F. F. A.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Holt, A. F.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fisher, Nigel
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Campbell, Sir David
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Horobin, I. M.




Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Speir, R. M.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Nicholls, Harmar
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (llford. N.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Oakshott, H. D.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Odey, G. W.
Studholme, H.G.


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Kaberry, D.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Keeling, Sir Edward
Orr-Ewing, Sir lan (Weston-super-Mare)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Partridge, E.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Paton, J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Lindsay, Martin
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Linstead, H. N.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Tomney, F.


Llewellyn, D. T.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Turton, R. H.


Lookwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Pitman, I. J.
Vane, W. M. F.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Powell, J. Enoch
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Viant, S. P.


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


McAdden, S. J.
Redmayne, M.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


McCallum, Major D.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wallace, H. W.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Remnant, Hon. P.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


McGovern, J.
Richards, R.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Watkinson, H. A.


McKibbin, A. J.
Robson Brown, W.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Wellwood, W.


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Roper, Sir Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Russell, R. S.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Wills, G.


Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Scott, R. Donald
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maude, Angus
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wood, Hon. R


Maydon, L.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Shepherd, William
York, C.


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)



Mellor, Sir John
Snadden, W. McN.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mitchison, G. R.
Soames, Capt. C.
Mr. Paget and Mr. Renton.

Orders of the Day — RHODESIA AND NYASALAND FEDERATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read. [Queen's Consent signified.]

4.19 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Central African Federation is a great theme, and great themes never grow stale. However many variations there may be upon them, the themes should always seem fresh and dominant. Unfortunately, those who have to announce great themes do become stale and may well grow dull. Lord Balfour, when he was Mr. Arthur Balfour, to whose advice and help I was commended by my father and which he gave me in full measure, once said in this House, "All that the hon. Gentleman said which was true was trite, and everything which he said which wasn't trite wasn't true." I find that adage haunting, this afternoon. This is no less than the sixth time that Central African Federation has been debated. The ringer moves on; the panorama of political events does not halt, but continues to unroll.
Before we come to discuss the Bill in detail, there are one or two things which, I think, add new colours to the background against which we are discussing these grave and important matters. I feel with the deepest sincerity that federation may—and nobody but the most rosy optimist could say about any human affairs that certain results will flow from certain actions—be the solution to the great problems, most of them inter-racial, with which the Continent of Africa is unquestionably faced in 1953. Those who have been in those tropical countries sometimes see the colours of the landscape being picked out by the rising sun as the mists roll back. That. I think is happening over Federation.
The three subjects to which I wish to address myself before going on to the details of the Bill are: first of all, the subject of a university which will be open to all races upon equal terms and with the same curriculum; secondly, the colour bar in the Northern Rhodesia

copper belt; thirdly, the vexed subject of African opposition to federation. I turn to the subject of the university.
I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that higher education under the Federation scheme is a federal subject on the exclusive list. Therefore, the House cannot expect any Minister in this House, or indeed any Minister in the Rhodesias or Nyasaland, to make statements which would bind a Government not yet in existence, and whose very birth depends on what I should describe as the successful outcome of our debate this afternoon and the processes which follow.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) touched upon this subject of a university no longer ago than last Monday, but Her Majesty's Government and the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends are by no means the only ones who have drawn attention to this subject, which is one of greatest importance against this background. Many other persons of consequence, including many well-wishers of federation, have stressed the importance of higher education as a test of the reality of partnership, and have suggested that there should be some declaration before federation comes about that the future university of Central Africa will be established and will be open to men of all races upon equal terms. My colleagues and I heartily endorse the feeling behind this suggestion.
I must repeat that under federation higher education will be the responsibility of the Federal Government. It is item No. 30 on the exclusive list, and no declaration made now could bind that Government and their policy on that matter. I am glad to be able to inform the House, however, that Sir Godfrey Huggins has told my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations that it is his personal opinion that there must be a Central African University providing university education of a sufficiently high standard to enable undergraduates to qualify locally at levels equal to those obtainable at United Kingdom universities, and that the university should be multi-racial, undergraduates of any race sharing the same teaching and undertaking the same courses on a foundation of academic equality.
Sir Godfrey Huggins rightly emphasises that university standards must not be reduced below a certain level, since that would be unfair alike to Europeans and Africans who are educationally qualified to take courses up to the standard of a university. Sir Godfrey Huggins has also informed my noble Friend that his views on this matter are shared by the chairman of the inaugural board set up last year in Southern Rhodesia to administer funds collected in Central Africa for the institution on a modest scale of a university college in Salisbury, the need for which had been felt before federation became a live issue. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is not in his place, because this is a matter which he raised earlier. He seems to have been caught by another engagement.
It is not possible for Sir Godfrey Huggins, any more than it is for United Kingdom Ministers, to state categorically what a Government not yet in existence will do. Support from the Federal Government will I have no doubt be necessary for the successful launching of any university in Central Africa. If the personal views of Sir Godfrey Huggins find acceptance, as I think they must, in every quarter of the House, I am sure that the House will agree that the university which will be established will not only have a great contribution to make to the promotion of co-operation and partnership between the races in Central Africa, but will also be worthy of the practical support of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. I hope I am not pitching it too high when I say that this statement of Sir Godfrey Huggins, who can hardly fail to be the leader of the new Federation, is one of the first fruits of this projected Federation.
I now turn to the second matter, the colour bar in the Northern Rhodesian Copper Belt. Those who were here for the general debate in the House last Friday may remember a phrase I used when talking about this matter. I said:
I think it is far from unlikely that it will be the employers who will take the first step to breaking down what we all recognise in this House to be an unhappy state of affairs which cannot endure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1953; Vol. 514, c. 2590.]
The House will, I hope, accept my assurance that I did not know at that time what specific action was being taken. I was, of course, aware—it is my duty to

be—of the general attitude of some of the employers in Northern Rhodesia on this subject.
Since I spoke those words, the text has been published of a letter which the general managers of the Mufulira and Roan Antelope Copper Mines have addressed to the members of the Northern Rhodesia Mineworkers' Union, which represents the European workers and employees in the mines. These mines were responsible for 52 per cent. of the copper production in the year before last and 48 per cent. last year.
The letter proposes joint consideration, at an early date, of the question of the advancement of African labour in the mining industry. This letter at first sight, for those who are not in touch with this question day by day, might appear of less importance than it is. It is. in fact, a move by the employers—I should describe it as a most enlightened move— to try to get out of the deadlock which has existed for so long between the African employees, represented by their union, and the European employees represented by theirs.
As I said last Friday, the dispute is not between employers and employed, but between one union and another. Obviously, any employer who tries to liberalise the terms of employment so as to give Africans greater opportunities of advance is, so to speak putting himself into the lions' den. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] If the hon. Member who asks "Why?" wishes more specific terms to be used, they are that such an employer runs the very great danger of having a strike at his mine. This proposal to liberalise African employment may well lead—and I trust that it will not—to what may be regarded as the most retrograde step of the European union's taking its members out on strike. That is the point of which the hon. Member should be aware, and that is the reason which led me to use the phrase, "putting themselves into the lions' den."
I do not think that any hon. Member would do other than applaud the action which the companies have taken. It may well lead to trouble for them, but they are aware of that. They sought an answer to this problem, and I am not overstating the issue when I say that upon the answer—and I choose my words very carefully—depends the very future of


the Rhodesian copper mines, their "to be or not to be." I think we are entitled to say on this occasion that the employers have decided to take up arms against the sea of trouble, and, by opposing, end them.
Again I claim and, I hope, not without justice, that this move is, too, one of the first fruits of federation. I apologise to the hon. Member for Dudley. We have got rather out of the usual course of events, and I have already dealt with the subject which I promised him I would mention.
I now turn to my third subject, the vexed question of African opposition. In his speech of the day before yesterday, the right hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) credited us, or rather I should say debited us, with statements that we have never made. He said that we have said there was no African opposition, or that it was negligible, and that his proposed Select Committee would decide who was right. I do not impute any blame to the right hon. and learned Gentleman; he has come very new to these affairs.
We have, of course, always admitted that there was a vocal opposition, that it represented, no doubt, the greater part of educated and influential African opinion. We said, equally, that the great bulk of the population were unaware of the issues, and at least the vast majority of people could not be described as being opposed to federation. Most of them— as I hasten to say would be the case in almost any country—if they had heard of the subject, would not be able to grasp the niceties of constitutional balance in law which federation involves.
I think that this afternoon some hon. Members were getting considerably out of their depths, and I probably well out of mine, on questions of constitutional matters across the Floor of the House, and to expect a largely illiterate population to be able to understand all these niceties is really asking too much. Nor can they understand the massive safeguards which are enshrined in the document.
But the phrases employed by the opponents of federation are very different. Specimens are, "The overwhelming weight of African opinion,"

"The virtually universal opposition of African opinion." Both phrases, used, I think, in another place by opponents of federation, are really a travesty of what has happened. I think that even among the influential Africans—and there are many—who are opposed to federation, there is a greater sense of responsibility than to describe the opposition of their fellow countrymen in these unmeasured terms.
Let me, and I hope in entirely objective language, recount some recent events. At a meeting in Lusaka on 22nd March, six weeks ago, Mr. Henry Nkumbula, President of the Northern Rhodesia African Congress, made a speech to about 800 Africans, who included a small number of chiefs, and called upon Africans to demonstrate against federation. He urged that the 1st and 2nd April should be set aside and observed as days of mourning during which no work should be performed. Copies of the Federation White Papers were publicly burned, and the Congress leaders—and I would remind the House that Congress in this context represents a political party, and a small one at that —sat under a red banner bearing the words, "Self-government the only ultimate object." I interpolate here that "Self-government the only ultimate object" means, in this sense, a Government consisting only of Africans.
Messrs. Katilungu and Nkoloma, the leaders of the Mineworkers' Union, said, according to my information, that whatever their personal feelings—and I do not think they disguise them; they are certainly opposed to federation—they would not see the union's machinery put into use to bring out the workers. I do not want to go too far into this matter, because I want to praise rather than impute blame.
The right hon. Gentleman, on Monday, praised the sense of responsibility which had been shown, which, he said, was because they were unwilling to use industrial action on a political matter. I take this opportunity of adding my praise to his on the action which they took and which is, I think, a good augury for the future. Unfortunately, at the same time, the Secretary of the General Workers' Union issued a circular advising members not to work. Since I have been


checking this statement, I want to be exactly accurate, and I am not suggesting that he necessarily used what might be called the union machinery, though he certainly issued a circular advising workers not to work. Mr. Konkola, the President of the Railway Workers, instructed the railway employees not to work. African civil servants were urged by the Congress Party to join the general strike.
In the event, these incitements were largely ignored, and the performance in response to them was generally summed up as a fiasco. On the Copper Belt there was a full attendance by Africans at Kikwe. Chingola, Luanshya and Ndola. The only mine affected was Mufalira. There were no strikes at Broken Hill, and Livingstone reported a normal attendance. The Chilanga Cement Works suffered a 90 per cent. strike, and in shops and some industrial premises in Lusaka only about one in five turned up for work. On the other hand, the railways were fully staffed and services functioned normally. Nearly all African civil servants reported for work except the daily paid staff. I must point out— and, again, I do not blame the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend for not being aware of the facts—that the intimidation to which we referred is not intimidation of the anti-Federalists; the intimidation is against those in favour of Federation by those not in favour of it.
During the course of the debate, the hon. Member for Fulham, East (Mr. M. Stewart), who is not present, asked, when these matters were touched upon, whether only direct action would be effective in persuading Her Majesty's Government that there was deep-seated opposition. Nothing could be further from our thoughts, but the hon. Member, as is not at all unusual with those participating in these debates for the first time, or nearly the first time, entirely missed the point.
It is that the leaders called for direct action, which everyone would deplore, upon a political matter, but that the response to their incitements to direct action found a negligible response in the African population to whom they were addressed. So that that, again, I think, is a subject upon which we in this House

can congratulate ourselves—that the people incited had sufficient sense of responsibility not to do the things that they were incited to do.
In speaking of these events, I have no wish, nor has any other supporter of federation, to pitch the case too high. There is unquestionably a very hard core of African opposition. Nobody denies it, and no Select Committee is required to find that out. At the same time, the violent speeches which have been made by some African leaders, and which have even found some echo in this House, paint a picture of a volcano which is about to erupt.
Such speeches might make it erupt, but I think we are entitled to say—and that the Africans are entitled to expect us to say—that looking back upon recent events since the passing of the referendum in Southern Rhodesia even those Africans who are opposed to federation are taking a responsible view, and that the majority of Africans are waiting to see the effects before they are wiling to consider direct action.
The three subjects upon which I have touched should do something to restore their confidence—and the confidence of everybody—in the good faith of those who hope to see federation become an accomplished fact. Of those thre subjects, perhaps Sir Godfrey Huggin's statement in support of a multi-racial university will strike a particular note in the hearts of all hon. Members taking part in this debate.
At this point—and I hope I am following the wishes of the House—I do not wish to recapitulate the well-founded case for federation. As I have already said, this is the sixth time that the subject has been debated in the House, and it seems to me that to go either into the matter of the economic advantages of federation or the massive safeguards which are enshrined in the Constitution for African interests might even lead me to be called to order on the ground of tedious repetition. I made a long speech on 24th March on this subject and the Government case rests, and rests squarely, on what I said then.
Particularly bearing in mind that the House had to listen to me on the colour bar last Friday, on Central African Federation on Monday, again today at


Question time, and now on this debate— and also that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) has to listen to me tonight on the Adjournment—I trust that the House will acquit me of any dereliction of duty or discourtesy if I now turn to discuss the Bill in detail.
The Bill is, by nature, an enabling Bill. It is short, but it can hardly be said to provide that light reading and sustenance for the layman which we should all like. There are some legal labyrinths through which I must try to conduct the laity with as much lucidity as I, myself a layman, can command. This is my attempt to do so. Clause 1 (1) provides the necessary powers to give effect to the federal scheme contained in Command 8754. Paragraph (a), by sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii), provides for the setting up of the necessary Federal authorities and for conferring the necessary powers upon them. All straightforward. So far, so good.
Now I come to rather more complicated matters. Sub-paragraph (iii) gives express authority for the interference with the Royal Prerogative which is involved in paragraph 134 (b) of the federal scheme. I believe that the position is that in the Colonial Territories neither unsuccessful litigants nor persons who have been convicted by the local legislature are normally allowed, by Her Majesty in Council, to appeal to the Privy Council—by rulings of the Privy Council —unless they have, in fact, exhausted all the remedies which exist and are open to them in their Colony.
If there is an appellate court in the country in which they have lost their suit or have been convicted, the Privy Council do not give leave to appeal unless all those sources have been previously exhausted. That is a short and perhaps not wholly incomprehensible statement of the position. This Bill seeks to codify the practice which is generally followed, and that is the main reason why the Queen's Consent to the Bill is required. Upon this subject I wish to inform the House that I have it in command from Her Majesty to acquaint the House that Her Majesty places her Prerogative and interests, so far as concerns the matters dealt with by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament.
Paragraph (b) of Clause 1 (1) authorises the making of the amendments of the Constitution of the Territories, which will be necessitated be the transfer of powers from the Territories to the Federation—that is to say, the powers of executive jurisdiction in certain matters. Paragraph (c) authorises the making of incidental, consequential or transitional provisions. It authorises the adaptation of Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament and Instruments made under them, to take account of the establishment of the Federation.
Speaking generally, we shall have to provide for any such Acts or Instruments which apply to all or any of the individual territories before federation, to apply after federation in a like manner, and in most cases concurrently to the Federation as a whole. I see many hon. and learned Gentlemen in the House, and it might be worth while mentioning that there are numerous precedents for authorising the amendment of the United Kingdom Acts by Order in Council in circumstances similar to those which attend this Bill. I might cite, for example, the Ceylon Independence Act, the Mandated and Trust Territories Act, the Palestine Act and the India (Consequential Provisions) Act.
The House may therefore be assured that there is nothing new in this provision, still less anything dangerous, and that having regard to the provision in subsection (4), which lays it down that a draft of any Order in Council under the Bill shall require the approval of Parliament, the House may safely agree to the inclusion of such an authority in this Bill.
I apologise to the House for going into these rather technical matters. I shall be as short as I can, and I hope that in trying to compress them I shall not offend in the cause of accuracy and be picked up by hon. Members below the Gangway. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 is designed to meet two different cases. First, the main bulk of the Order in Council made under the Bill will constitute the Federal Constitution and, as agreed by the Conference, that Constitution will be amendable only by the Federal Legislature in accordance with paragraphs 144 and 145 of the federal scheme or by an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. There will, for instance, be no power to amend the provision of the Federal Constitution by


Order in Council. I want to underline that, because it is a matter of great importance.
Secondly, the Order in Council made under the Bill will also make certain adaptations in Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament and in Instruments made thereunder. It may be necessary to make amendments or additions to those adaptations and it would be wholly inappropriate for the Federal Legislature to make them. It is therefore desirable that the Order in Council should be able to authorise amendments to these adaptations by some simpler procedure than an amendment of the Constitution.
I need not go into subsection (3) because I think I can safely say that it is a super-precaution against an eventuality which is most unlikely to occur. Finally, subsection (4) requires a draft of the Order in Council establishing the Federation to be laid before Parliament and to be approved by both Houses.
I now want to make a very earnest request to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—who, we are very glad to hear, is to speak upon this matter—which I hope he will consider in the spirit in which it is made. I want to state the differences between us, as I see them, with strict fairness. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite would not, I hope, dissent from me when I say that the main difference is whether we should proceed in the face of opposition from many vocal and influential Africans. While some of the methods employed in the scheme may well be open to difference— which we might be able to iron out—I do not think that we are divided upon the principle or advantages of federation if it can be successfully launched.
Let me add this—that I believe there is, quite wrongly, a widespread feeling amongst Africans that the Labour Party are opposed to any scheme of federation as such—there is no justification for such an opinion being held by Africans but, nevertheless, I believe they hold it—and not opposed, as I believe they are, only to federation being proceeded with in the face of the opposition which I have already mentioned.
The responsibility for proceeding—and I make no bones about my belief that it is a very heavy one—rests squarely upon

my own shoulders and that of my colleagues in the Government. We on these benches must, whatever we do, absolve hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite from the consequences of taking action now. We must do so. I add in parenthesis, and I trust that hon. Members will not think I am making an unnecessary point, that we could not absolve them from the consequences of preventing us from taking action. The dangers of not taking action are not widely referred to or widely understood.
The Leader of the Opposition will remember that in an article in the "Daily Herald" he said:
We are confronted with a dilemma.
He would solve it in one way, we in another. He said:
It is dangerous to carry through federation against the weight of African opinion. On the other hand"—
and this is what I am saying, the very point I am on—
the results of abandoning it may be serious and may injuriously affect racial relations.
I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman, whose name, we all know, is held in high regard in these Territories, whether, if we assume this responsibility for proceeding now and this House proceeds through the various stages of federation and it is carried through, he and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly will do all they can to make federation prosper, when they have absolved themselves of responsibility for proceeding with it now, such responsibility being on our shoulders and not upon theirs. I urge those who, perhaps unwittingly, have been opposed to federation, to combine to build it up in those circumstances.
My colleagues and I have derived some encouragement from what Mr. Stockhill has said. He has, throughout the discussions, been an opponent of federation, and not upon the grounds of timing or mistiming. He has been against it for much wider reasons, for what to him is a matter of principle. I agree with none of his reasons. He maintained a campaign all through the referendum against federation. But now that he regards the referendum as having set the machinery in motion, now that he regards federation as likely to come into force, he has urged his supporters to co-operate in making it a success.
I repeat, in conclusion, what I said at the beginning, and what I have said on many occasions. This is a political issue of the greatest gravity and importance. In my sincere opinion federation may mark a turning point in the history of the African Continent, but, whatever it is, it represents a British solution of the racial problems of which we are all so conscious at the turn of the half century. We have witnessed in the last 50 or 60 years an almost unbelievable advancement in the material prosperity, the spiritual enlightenment and the political responsibilities of the Africans, and these are the fruits of the British colonial system as we have applied it in modern times.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are entitled to take their full share of any credit that we have in the development of this colonial system. This is something in which we all share. If a society is to be founded in which all races can live together and in which the true spirit of partnership can reign, then we on these benches believe, and we believe it profoundly and sincerely, that it is upon these lines upon which we ask the House to pronounce today that this future must largely rest.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: I am quite sure that we all give the right hon. Gentleman credit for believing that this is the right way to deal with this very difficult problem, but I should like him also to give credit to those on this side who believe that this is a dangerous experiment, and who, in particular, believe that this experiment, to go forward successfully, needs to be approached with greater caution and with some measure of delay.
The right hon. Gentleman has spoken in moderate terms today, very different, I am glad to say, from the speech that he made on Monday. Frankly, it was a speech which accused the Opposition, for no apparent reason, of taking a line purely for some kind of strange political manoeuvre. There was no manoeuvre about it at all. It illustrated, perhaps, a certain insensibility the right hon. Gentleman has on these matters, because I do not think he understood, he certainly did not respond to, the very sincere and moderate statement made by my right

hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths).
I do not think the right hon. Gentleman understands today the feeling that the Africans may have that they have not had the opportunity of putting their case fully. I know the whole of this story. I know of the opportunities they have had. I know that they have refused to come. Perhaps they might have come. However, in these matters, where one is dealing with the future of another people, one has to show an infinite amount of patience, and really the time has not been very long, when we consider the long time it took to bring forward reforms in India. We look back over countless occasions on which we all hoped for cooperation, and we got non-co-operation. Again and again we had to persist, and really the time spent over this African federation is, in these matters, comparatively short.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the subject of Central African Federation has been a subject of discussion since 1929?

Mr. Attlee: I do not think it has been anywhere nearly so prominent as it is now for so long. I think I am right in saying that amalgamation was suggested; it was then turned down; and the matter was not really raised again, I think, until quite recently.
I am speaking for the first time in these debates, and I claim no special knowledge. I did have a short visit to Northern Rhodesia at the invitation of the unofficial members, and a still shorter visit to Southern Rhodesia, but I have not seen Nyasaland at all. Obviously, in such a short visit any knowledge acquired is entirely superficial. I met out there the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, and I should like to express our very deep sympathy with him in the tragic loss that he has sustained, and our regret that he cannot be here, and the reason for it, because I know he did take very great pains to try to find out the rights and wrongs of this matter.
However, although I had a very short time out there, I did endeavour to see as many people as I could. I think personal contacts are valuable. They give one, more or less, the climate of opinion. Also I think that a knowledge of the physical


background is useful. When one is considering constitutional problems one wants to get some kind of idea of the space, the distances, the look of the place. When I went out I tried to go out with an open mind. It was not a matter to which I had ever applied any very great attention before, and I wanted to find out what the real position was so far as I could. When I returned, I wrote some articles in which I endeavoured to put, as fairly as I could, the fact that this was a debatable question and that there was much to be said on both sides.
Since then, we have all had to make up our minds. Some of my colleagues have taken one view and the majority have taken another view. Certain things emerged from my visit. First of all it was quite clear that it was generally recognised that there were economic advantages in federation and, secondly, one recognised that there were extremists on both sides—extremist Africans and extremist Europeans. But we all realise that we must never judge just by extremists or make the excuse of the foolish things that extremists say for disregarding the thoughts and ideas of the masses.
I would never judge the settlers in Rhodesia by some of the extremely foolish things said by some of the extreme white dominant people. I talked to many people—many are personal friends of mine—who believe in federation. In the same way, there are Africans who talk of African dominance. We get people like that. There again it is unfair to judge the whole of the Africans by them or even the educated Africans by them.
We did come away with this broad impression, and that was, that, by and large, the Africans were not in favour of federation. I am putting it at its lowest, first of all. We may say that that is only due to the fact of their inate conservatism; they oppose anything. I tried to look into that, and talked with people, and I must say that I was particularly impressed by what was said to me by Dr. Moffat. He said that of course there was the expression which is only given by a limited number of educated people, but, he said, there was no doubt that through all classes there was a genuine fear of federation.
I think that the Minister of State, in a debate in this House, said that he had that same impression that it was a fear, rightly or wrongly, of the domination in the federation of the South Rhodesian idea. Since then one has tried to watch and see how opinion has moved. I am bound to say that I do not think there has been any sign that there has been any large body of opinion that has come over in favour of federation.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that the mine workers did very wisely to decide not to use industrial power for political ends. But that is negative. It does not give rise to any idea of support. I am bound to say that my impression when I was out there was that a good many of the chiefs were rather naturally hesitant and that since then the general opinion of the chiefs has hardened against federation. Let me say that there may be some cases of intimidation. It is quite possible, but I think the general impression left in my mind is that opinion has hardened. I think there are certain reasons for that.
We rather pleaded for delay. I think we were right. What we have actually seen is a hardening of opposition, and I think we have seen in the development of the scheme a weakening, in our view, of the safeguards for the Africans. It is not my intention to go over the arguments again. I have heard the argument put on both sides. I have heard it put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas), and the impression left on my mind was that there had been a weakening of the safeguards.
That is very important, because I found one of the difficulties in talking with Africans was their distrust of paper safeguards, and the reason for that was what the Malan Government were doing with regard to the Entrenched Clauses. This brings us to the point that we all realise. We are dealing here with a problem not merely of certain parts of Africa but the broad African problem in relation to the African people and the Europeans.
I cannot stress too much the importance of what has been done in South Africa, because this does carry, as everybody knows, right throughout the


Continent. That may be the difficulty of talking of safeguards, because they say, "What is the good of safeguards if they can be disregarded?" There is, I think, another unfortunate circumstance arising out of the course of events. If we look at it from the point of view of the Africans, there is a great contrast between the African whose opinion is not taken and the European whose opinion is taken in a plebiscite.
We say that there was express provision for the one, and the other might be very difficult, and so on. The person looking at it, standing apart from that, sees that those in the one case say, "We are to accept what we are told," and, in the other, they are asked what is their view. The Government having declared themselves in favour of a scheme of federation, the leaders of federation in Africa did not have to apply their minds to dealing with Africans—their job was to get a majority among the Europeans.
Almost inevitably—and I think this is borne out by a good number of speeches —they ended to minimise the safeguards. They said, "Once we have got federation this thing will not really come." I think that has had a serious effect on the African mind. I do not want to quote, but we all know that there have been these cases. Therefore, we still consider that there is a strong case for delay. I was very much impressed by two articles, which I expect most people have read, in "The Times" of yesterday and today. I would quote from one part of them. The articles were headed "Africa Emergent." It said:
The future of Africa will now depend more and more on the political sagacity and common sense of its inhabitants rather than on policies directed from Britain. Except in 'backward' territories which still enjoy Crown Colony government, negative action in the sense of ' putting on the brake' is becoming increasingly difficult. That is the inescapable conclusion of the granting of transitional constitutions in the post-war years, whether they deal out power to black or white. A process of this kind, once started, cannot easily be arrested. It can only be guided.
I think we all agree.
The deciding factors will really be threefold. The first is whether African politicians quickly learn what is needed in the true interests of their countries and, having done so, can retain enough hold over their supporters to do what is necessary even when it is unpopular.

The second is whether the European settlers can realise that it is to a large extent their refusal to recognise realities which has made the success of a movement like Mau Mau possible and will henceforth listen to their more enlightened readers. The importance of Central African Federation is that it gives them one more chance to do this.
The article states that the third is the extent to which the administrators and technicians can establish a new relationship with the semi-emancipated peoples.
I want to deal with those two points. It is our duty to try to the utmost extent to get that sense of responsibility in African leaders; a good deal has been done in that context, but we do not want to give a pretext for irresponsibility. As to whether European settlers can realise the position, I know some of them do, but just as there is a tendency for the African to play up to his extremists, so there is the danger of the European playing up to his extremists. Therefore, this experiment, which, if it is to be a success, must be based on good will and trust and on the conception of partnership, is starting under bad auspices. I am afraid that is the stage that we have reached. That is why we were very insistent that every possible opportunity should be given for Africans to state their points of view and feel that their points of view had been attended to.
The right hon. Gentleman today gave us two very important pieces of information with regard to the universities and the colour bar in the mines. I very much welcome what he said, because that is exactly what I want done. I know Sir Godfrey Huggins very well, and I also know Mr. Welensky, and I believe they are both liberal-minded men; but what is demanded from them is high statesmanship. If we demand statesmanship from the Africans it is also demanded from the Europeans. That is why I should like there to be an interval in which actual tangible proof could be given of a new relationship. There are many matters relating to the colour bar which can perfectly well be broken down here and now and new starts made. I believe that that would be the only way in which we could get acceptance, and if we got it broken down, perhaps the specific provisions which we shall have to examine later will be more easily dealt with.
Everything depends on whether we can start this as a matter of real partnership.


I have spoken to Africans about this and they have said "Partnership? But we will be such a junior partner." We have realised for a long time that they must be at first a junior partner. Nevertheless, we must have the beginning of partnership, and that is why we are unable to agree to the Second Reading. We believe that the matter is still being rushed, and the importance of the experiment to the whole of Africa is so immense that we dread going into it under bad auspices and with bad feelings.
The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if this becomes the law of the land it is the duty of all of us to try to make it work to the best of our ability, but even at this eleventh hour I urge that it is worth while delaying so that we may get some tangible proof of a new relationship which will bring the Africans into harmony with the scheme.

5.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: We are trying this afternoon to do one of the most difficult things—perhaps the most difficult thing— in the world, to produce a solution of Government which will not only be fair to black and white, but will commend itself to both races. The speeches which have been made show that the House is rising to the height of the great occasion with which it is confronted. I am sure that all of my hon. and right hon. Friends would wish to welcome the return of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, restored to health and to his accustomed lucidity of reasoning, because none but he could have made so powerful a special contribution at this stage to the debates which are now drawing to a close.
It is inevitable that in these great discussions there has been friction. The sparks have flown. That is because both here and in Africa everyone is deeply convinced of the momentous nature of the happenings which are now taking place. The Leader of the Opposition referred to two remarkable articles in "The Times" yesterday and today. There was about them a sense of fate, of urgency; one might almost say that there was a sense of doom about them, doom which might be averted but a doom which would fall if positive steps were not taken. That is the atmosphere and the

background against which we are debating these great questions.
The difficulty which we are in is that many of us do not have special knowledge of these Territories and peoples. Many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House have great and special knowledge of them, but for the majority of us it must be a matter of a more or less superficial acquaintance. Like the Leader of the Opposition, I claim no special knowledge of the Territories in East Africa. I claim a little more knowledge of the Territories in West Africa, having spent some two years there as chairman of a commission on higher education, a point to which I shall refer later.
It is because we are trying to govern half a continent at arm's length that we are faced with so many problems. That is a task which it is impossible for us to continue under modern conditions. The Leader of the Opposition referred to our experiences in India. As we all remember, he himself took a very prominent part in the Royal Commission which did so much to work out the relations between the peoples there, and to lay the constitutional foundations for those great changes. However, the right hon. Gentleman would not deny that the pace of the world has speeded up incalculably since those days. The progress by discussion, lasting over decades, in the case of the Government of India has been compressed nowadays into a space almost of months. That is a fact which all our arguments have to take into account.
It is for that reason that I rather distrust the argument for delay which the right hon. Gentleman, though speaking with great authority and with great responsibility, placed once more before the House. I do not feel that we are in a situation where delay as such will be of advantage to the solution of the problem.
By their fruits ye shall know them.''
We must plant the tree in order to see what the fruits are going to be. It is mere speculation to continue to talk about what the fruits of this tree are going to be. I believe it is said amongst the Jews that there must never be mention of the name "Jehovah," because once that name is mentioned things are never the same again. Once we mention


the word "self-government" and once there is a grant, as "The Times" article said, even of these quasi-constitutions, things are never the same again. The time comes for a test by the touchstone of deeds; no longer to continue the process of argument.
The problems are great enough, and none of us can be certain they will be solved by the enterprise on which we are embarking this afternoon. Self-government has not solved the problem in other places. Would any of us say that the problems between the black and the white people have been solved in South Africa? Neither has Colonial administration always solved the problem. Can any of us say that the problem of the relations between black and white has been solved in Kenya? [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Uganda."] In Uganda, as the hon. Member well knows, there does not exist this problem of a multi-racial society which we are discussing. We are discussing the intensely difficult problem of two societies very different from each other living in very close proximity, interdigitated with one another. That is what makes the problem.
It is no use saying "Uganda," for I might reply by saying "West Africa." The Gold Coast and Nigeria, with which I am not unacquainted, have a totally different problem to the problem we are discussing now. The problem of a multiracial society is one which has puzzled and baffled many Governments over many centuries and in many parts of the world.

Mr. M. Follick: Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that the inter-racial and multiracial problem has been entirely settled in Brazil?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am not altogether unacquainted with Brazil. It has not been settled there, but what has been done is that Brazil has been made into a homogeneous State.

Mr. Follick: Is not that a settlement?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: That may be, but that is not the advance which either black or white people are contemplating at the moment. In Brazil there has been

enormous inter-breeding which has gone on for a long time in that country, but it should be remembered that neither the Africans nor the Europeans are the native people. The true native population there, in numbers and in status, is an entirely different proposition to the native population which we are discussing here. It has never been suggested that self-government should be given to the Brazilian Indians alone. That exemplifies the fact that the problem we are considering here is a different problem. In some ways it is a unique problem, because the contact between the two peoples is so very new and so very raw, while the rate at which we have to go to handle it is so very great.
I say that we have now come to a time for a decision. The right hon. Gentleman himself said that the Africans distrust paper safeguards. Then what is the use of multiplying the paper safeguards? The fruits of the tree will be the proof, and not the number of forms which are being filled up and sent to the agricultural department asking for permission to plant the trees.
My right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary this afternoon gave us two pieces of information which are of the greatest moment and, if I may say so, afford us the greatest hope. He spoke of two problems, that of higher education and that of the colour bar, more particularly the industrial colour bar. It should be remembered that the acquisition of a skill which is a thing which cannot be taken back. That is not a paper safeguard. When a man has learned how to work a drill, use modern machinery, operate the complicated engines upon which our civilisation rests, he has learned something which cannot be withdrawn from him. Similarly, when he masters the technique of higher education he possesses something which cannot be withdrawn from him. These are very different from Clauses in a Bill passed by Parliament.
My right hon. Friend said in the case of the colour bar that the great companies had taken the decisive step of asking the unions to come into conference with them on the question of the advancement of African labour. I know as well as any one in this House the state of uneasiness among the great industrial unions regarding the whole problem of what they call


dilution. It is the danger which they feel of lower grade labour being used by the employer to do the work at a lower cost both in conditions and pay. The uneasiness is not merely that they are being called into conference to discuss the removal of the colour bar, but also that they are being called into conference to discuss the conditions of labour and the repercussions from dilution by African labour.
This is one of the things which greatly disturbs the ordinary trade unionist and the skilled industrial worker. Not only them, indeed, but the skilled professional worker also. All of us know something of the illiberal attitude taken up by some of the professional unions in the medical profession, to which I myself belong, with regard to the admission of refugees from Central Europe to full practising rights in this country. Sensitiveness about professional skill is not confined to one stratum of society. But that this should be embarked upon at all is a fact which we ought to take into account as of a good omen when considering the problems which we have before us today.
The next point which my right hon. Friend mentioned and which I think was of fundamental importance was the setting up at an early date of a university. About this, Sir Godfrey Huggins has said that it is hoped that students of all races will be admitted on equal terms, working to full university standards. I had the honour, as I have said, of being appointed chairman of a commission on higher education which visited West Africa and surveyed exactly that problem. There had not been set up any university college in West Africa working up to the recognised standards in all the many years with which we have been in contact with that part of the Continent.
Such a scheme was regarded by West African opinion as a touchstone. So great was their interest that when the scheme was decided upon the peasant farmers of West Africa contributed hundreds of thousands of pounds towards the endowment of these two university colleges. The one at Accra obtained an endowment of over £1 million from local farmers, and the university college at Ibadan also received a very great endowment of money from the farmers from the West African Produce Marketing Boards.
Those of us who have tried to obtain funds for higher education in this country, and still more those of us who have approached agriculturists with the object of obtaining hundreds of thousands of pounds for the endowment of university education can conceive of the achievement brought about in West Africa when those endowments were made by the Africans themselves. They regarded it as of fundamental importance, and on that they actually put down their money. Now this progress is to go ahead in Central Africa.
This was a matter of discussion in the previous debate. A declaration was asked for. Here is the declaration. I think that my right hon. Friend was well advised not merely to welcome the declaration but to indicate that it would receive practical support, which I interpret as actual financial assistance, from the United Kingdom as well. That is the sort of step which might well be considered as vital by Central African opinion.
I certainly do not wish to take up the time of the House, especially in view of impending events, but I say that the Africans will do well to take note of these two declarations as some of the most hopeful signs which have taken place with regard to the coming into force of federation.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

5.31 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Agricultural Land (Removal of Surface Soil) Act, 1953.
2. Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1953.
3. Leasehold Property Act and Long Leases (Scotland) Act Extension Act, 1953.
4. Transport Act, 1953.
5. Prevention of Crime Act, 1953.
6. Glasgow Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1953.


7. Aberdeen Harbour Order Confirmation Act, 1953.
8. University of Southampton Act, 1953.
9. Rhoanglo Group Act, 1953.
10. City of London (Central Criminal Court) Act, 1953.
11. National Trust Act, 1953.
12. London Hydraulic Power Act, 1953.
13. South Essex Waterworks Act, 1953.
14. Milford Docks Act, 1953.
15. Herts and Essex Water Act, 1953.
16. Great Northern London Cemetery (Crematorium) Act, 1953.
17. Newbury Corporation Act, 1953.

And to the following Measure, passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

Incumbents (Discipline) and Church Dignitaries (Retirement) Amendment Measure, 1953.

Orders of the Day — RHODESIA AND NYASALAND FEDERATION BILL

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

5.45 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We were discussing the question of education and constitutional advance. Certainly I think that the actions in which the House has just been engaged show how difficult it is for even the most educated amongst us fully to understand the workings of our Parliamentary procedure. I am sure it would be very difficult for any of us to explain to African hearers why, in the middle of a debate on the Second Reading of a Bill dealing with the federation of Central Africa, we should have to go to another place to listen to the Royal Assent being given to Bills dealing with the removal of soil, the prevention of crime, and the improvement of the transport of this country. It is only by working this thing that we shall know. I am sure that the step which is being taken, the step of progress, is the essential one.
I certainly do not desire to detain the House at all in view of the many curtailments of our debate this afternoon, which

have inevitably taken place. But I must say that I was a little disappointed that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), in the debate on Monday, referred to the speeches of some of us on this side of the House, and in particular to my speech, as haying neglected to take account of African opposition and having failed to give full weight to opinion here, such as the opinion of the Church of Scotland. Indeed, it was suggested that I had failed to draw attention to it at all. I re-read my speech to see if that view was justified. I do not think it was, for I specifically called attention to the fact that in my part of the country, in Scotland, uneasiness was perhaps greater than anywhere else.
It is certainly true that the Churches are deeply concerned and the Scottish Church in particular. It is also true to say that they are in close touch with Africans of all grades, not merely the educated Africans, but the peasants and the African tribesmen themselves. So very great attention should be given to their views. I thought it a little unfair also of the hon. Member for Dundee, East to say that I seemed to show an opposition to Africans being educated at all. If so, I spent two years of my life in a singularly unfruitful activity, seeing that it was for the very purpose of stimulating African education, particularly higher education.
On the question of African opposition, I am sure that at the stage we have now reached, trial is the only thing which will be an effective step towards convincing them that this will be to their advantage. There is the infinitely complicated position of reserved subjects, the reserved rights of the Colonial Office, the particular powers of South Rhodesia and of the Colonial Office over certain subjects there. It is barely possible for us over here to comprehend altogether these powers. But I think the time has come—and rightly come—at which the subject, having been approached, has to go ahead to the touchstone of actual working.
As government departs from here much responsibility will pass from here and fall heavily indeed on the shoulders of those in Africa—as has been said by the Leader of the Opposition—on the shoulders of both black and white in Africa. But it will come towards them,


and impress them. They will feel it upon their shoulders. Responsibility is a great teacher. Only by an increase in responsibility will we get both sides to face the practical problems before them. We shall still have a great deal to do in this country, and in this House, because, after all, we are the originators of this great experiment. One thing we can do. We can give sympathy and understanding.
These will be our tasks. Our responsibility—standing back as we are, thousands of miles from these active clashes— is great. That is our responsibility that of self-restraint. We are dealing at our ease in a peaceful and tranquil atmosphere with things which are of instant, burning, importance to those who live cheek by jowl with them. Therefore, we must do our best to see that every word we speak here is spoken with a sense of deep responsibility.
The House is today debating this great subject in a temper which could not be surpassed. I only trust that we shall be able in years to come to maintain the same judicial atmosphere in what is, after all, one of the greatest cases and causes which even this House in its long experience has ever had to embark upon. We are determining justice between black and white, partnership between cultures of very varying levels, and the reconciliation of a conflict which, if not resolved, will bring all that quarter of the world down into some of the bloodiest misery that has ever overtaken any section of the human race.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: This long discussion on the merits and demerits of federation, which has roused very deep and sincere differences, is now drawing to a close, and I would like to make two points which may be of some value in these closing stages of the discussion when, as we must assume, federation is on the point of being given legal effect.
The first point is the argument that has been advanced, I do not think in this House—at least not in my hearing— during the debates, but outside, namely, that if this Bill is passed it will weaken our case against any demand or request in South Africa for the transfer of the High Commission Territories. It is argued that if federation is carried through against, as is admitted, the oppo-

sition of articulate African opinion, that will weaken very gravely our case if South Africa asks for the transfer of the territories because, it is said, we could then no longer argue with such force that African opinion was opposed to transfer.
If I thought that was a valid argument, if I thought that the passage of this Bill really would weaken our case against the transfer of territories to South Africa, it would considerably affect my views upon federation, and I have therefore given very careful and anxious thought to the question. I am convinced that the passage of this Bill would not weaken our case against transfer, and I do not think hon. Members on either side of the House, whatever their views on other aspects of this Bill may be, need have fears about it on this score.
It seems to me that the argument that the passage of this Bill would weaken our case rests upon a misunderstanding of the real issues between us and South Africa upon this matter. Our case has never altered on this point. It was stated right at the beginning in 1909 when the South Africa Act was passed. It has been restated by every Government of every political complexion. I myself had the honour of restating it from the Dispatch Box when I was in office. It is that there cannot be any question of transfer without prior consultation with the inhabitants, both African and European, of the territories and without the consent of Parliament.
We have always from the very beginning stressed both these conditions—the need to consult the inhabitants and the need for the consent of Parliament. We have done so for a very good reason, because insistence upon the need for the consent of the House of Commons is really a main bastion of our case. It is absolutely necessary if we are going to answer South Africa's main case. We must understand what South Africa's case is if we are going to resist it and argue against it.
South Africa's case is a very simple one. It is that the United Kingdom and this Parliament are already committed and pledged to transfer these territories. South Africa says that the Act of 1909 created a direct, or at any rate an implied, obligation on our part to transfer these Territories; and that there was an implied pledge to transfer those Territories.


South Africa says that our failure to do this for more than 40 years is a very grave breach of our given word. That is the South African case which we have got to answer.
Of course, if we have no answer to it, it is an extremely powerful case because if, indeed, the Act of 1909 created an implied or direct obligation, if it contained a pledge on our part that we would transfer these territories, our whole position on this matter is fundamentally weak and grows weaker with time. It is only by asserting the need for the consent of Parliament as well as the need to consult the inhabitants of the territories that we can argue against and destroy this case which is South Africa's main case. We can only do it by asserting that Parliament is in no way committed by the Act of 1909, that it is absolutely free and that its freely given consent is necessary before there can be any question of transfer.
Our case, therefore, has been always and still must be that the Act of 1909 did not set up any pledge, direct or indirect or implied, but merely created machinery by which the transfer could be effected if at any future date both Governments freely agreed to the transfer. There is no pledge at all. It is only machinery set up by the Act of 1909.
I cannot go into the details of why our case is good on this matter, but I should like to say one brief word about it because I think there is little doubt that misconceptions on this point have affected some people's judgment about the merits of this Bill. The argument that we would be weakening our case on the territories if this Bill were passed has been picked up by certain South African papers and it is, therefore, important to show that our case is extremely strong and unanswerable on this matter.
I have studied this matter very carefully and closely. The documents and the speeches in particular in 1909, when the first Act was passed, showed conclusively that the 1909 Act was, in the first place, a South African Act. It was passed by this Parliament, but it came to us from South Africa having been framed, drafted and agreed upon in South Africa, and we were merely the legislative machine for putting into operation a South African Act. It is not an Act im-

posed on South Africa by this country. Secondly, this Act specifically and in terms said that the United Kingdom Cabinet and Parliament must agree before there could be any question of transfer; and thirdly all parties in 1909, including South Africans, agreed that that was the interpretation of that Act. This whole argument that there was an implied obligation on us in the Act to transfer the territories is a later invention by South Africa.
Therefore, there can be no doubt that the consent of Parliament is necessary as well as the need to consult the inhabitants of the territories before there can be any question of transfer. This point is essential to our case. We cannot answer the South African argument unless we put great weight upon the need for the consent of Parliament.
If a request came from South Africa, Parliament and the Government would at once consult the inhabitants. They are pledged to do that. The views of the inhabitants would, of course, be a very important factor weighed by Parliament when making up its mind, but the essential point that we must stress in order to defeat South Africa's case is that Parliament would have a complete, unhampered and free right to decide the matter then in its view of the interests of the inhabitants. That must be our main case against South Africa on this question of transfer, and certainly that case cannot be affected in any way by the passage of this Bill.
I hope that nobody in South Africa— the South African Government or anyone else—will be misled by arguments that have been heard that the passage of this Bill will weaken our case on this matter. I very much hope that no request for a transfer of the territories is going to come from South Africa. If it did, it would undoubtedly put a very great strain upon the relations between our two countries. South Africa must realise that we here, without division between the sides of the House, reject altogether the argument that we are pledged in any way by the 1909 Act to transfer these territories, that Parliament is completely free to make up its mind, and finally that no conceivable Parliament in this country, as things are, could ever agree to the transfer of these territories to South Africa. That must


be understood, and that our case on this is unaffected by the passage of the Bill.
The second point I wish to make is, now that federation is on the point of being given legal effect, it must be the duty of us all to try to make it work as smoothly and as beneficially to the inhabitants of the territories as we possibly can. The constitutional provisions of the Bill will, of course, be of very great importance, and we shall have to discuss them very carefully on Committee stage. I quite agree that paper safeguards cannot themselves be the solution for everything, but none-the-less they are of great importance. It will be one of the duties of hon. Members of this House to make those paper safeguards as effective as possible.
But the real safeguard will not lie in the terms of the constitution. It will lie in our capacity to breathe a proper spirit into the constitution and make it work; to create an atmosphere which will really make this constitution a step toward the progressive development of a partnership between the races. The spirit and the method of the introduction of federation will be of extreme importance. It is essential that the introduction of federation shall be accompanied by tangible progress, progress which can be seen and felt, toward the economic, social and political advancement of the Africans in the territories. It will make all the difference in the world if this federation comes to be associated in the general public mind—and particularly of course in the minds of Africans—with concrete steps toward the kind of things which they want, and for which they are struggling.
I would make an appeal to the Colonial Secretatry, but first I must say this. I was glad that today he made, if I may say so, an extremely moderate and reasonable speech. I must say also that it seemed to me that, rightly or wrongly, he has given the impression— it may not be his own view—that he has not fully realised the importance of the views and the fears of Africans on this whole question of federation. I may or I may not be right. I cannot judge his opinion; I can only judge the impression which he gives to me and to some of my hon. Friends.
Certainly it is not enough only to have one's policy right in this matter. It is vitally important that the whole attitude of approach, the whole impression given, shall also be right. I listened very carefully the other day when the right hon. Gentleman gave his reasons why he had seen fit to advise Her Majesty not to receive the Nyasaland chiefs. I was not really impressed by the arguments I heard. I still think—although I can see the case he made, and that there was an argument both one way and the other— that it was a clumsy and an unfortunate act of advice which he gave.
But now is the moment when all these mistakes—if they are mistakes—can very well be corrected. The moment of the introduction of federation is a moment when new impressions can be given; when a new atmosphere can be created. I appeal to the Colonial Secretary and to Her Majesty's Government to do all in their power to ensure that the introduction of federation is accompanied by tangible steps. And they have very considerable powers which they can use. Under federation Her Majesty's Government will, of course, retain the ultimate responsibility for a great many powers in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland which directly affect African interests.
The whole field of such things as past laws, trade union rights, health, housing and schools will, in the Northern Territories under federation, be the ultimate responsibility of Her Majesty's Government in this country, and therefore of Parliament. In all those fields striking and long overdue progress and advances can be made. It would be very important were advances made in many of these fields at the time, or about the time, of the introduction of federation.
Above all, the whole question of political advancement in the two Northern Territories is under the ultimate control of Her Majesty's Government even under federation. For the right to political advancement in the legislatures in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland we in this House are responsible, even under federation. Therefore we have controls and powers and it is very important that these powers should now be used. Although we have no control over Southern Rhodesia, the Government have great influence in Southern Rhodesia;


and it would be a very fine thing if at this moment the Southern Rhodesian Government could again reduce the qualification for being on the common roll which was raised and increased. I would appeal to Sir Gordon Huggins—I agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about his essentially liberal attitude—to realise the importance of such an act as this at such a time as this.
The Federal Government would not have many powers that directly affect African interests, but there are two fields in which they could make concrete advances as part of the early stages of federation. One, as was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, is in the field of higher education. I was glad to hear what he said about that. It is vital to press on as quickly and as early as possible with the development of this university for all races. Higher education includes universities, teaching hospitals and many other things which could be done in due course.
If one of the first proofs of federation were the creation of this great university, open with equal treatment to all races, it would do a great deal to create the right atmosphere for the introduction of federation and give it the best chance of working well. This sort of development in the field of higher education is one of those things which would not be possible, or which would be not nearly so easily possible, if there was not federation. It is one of the things which can be said to be the first fruits of federation in the sense that it could not have come from anything else. It is of vital importance that the right hon. Gentleman should push on with what he was telling us about this afternoon, so that as soon as possible we may see his ideas translated into bricks and mortar.
The second field in which the Federal Government could make advances is in the setting up of an electoral qualification for federal elections. I hope very much that one of the first acts will be to create a common roll for elections with a fair and reasonable qualification. I believe that the common roll is much better for partnership than communal representation. The danger of communal representation is that it perpetuates the political colour division, whereas the

common roll cuts across this political division. It is, of course, essential that the common roll should be on a fair basis and hold out a firm prospect of progressive participation by all people in the territory.
Those are some steps that could be taken to accompany the introduction of federation. The most important of them psychologically, as was said by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, is that actual steps should be taken here and now to begin to break down the colour bar. I was very interested in what the Colonial Secretary had to say about the new policy of an important section of white employers in the Copper Belt. I agree with him further that it is not at all easy to see what the next step will be. It may well be that the white trade union will resist. That has been known to happen on the Rand before now. There have been bitter fights between white employers and the white trade union on this very matter. I hope that the white trade union will respond to the lead given in this matter of the industrial colour bar by certain employers in the Copper Belt.
There are other fields, too, in which the colour bar can gradually be broken or in which steps can be taken to begin to break it—fields in which the Government have considerable influence, if not complete control. There is, for instance, the social attitude of Government officials. Great progress could be made in breaking down the colour bar at the social level—the social mixing of people—if Government officials would give a different sort of lead from that which they give at the moment, almost without exception. There are, too, things under direct Government control, such as the separate counters at post offices, where real steps could be taken to start that visible breaking down of the colour bar.
If steps of this sort were taken now, it would create a completely different atmosphere and would set federation off to a very much more hopeful start. It would greatly improve the prospect of the smooth working of the scheme, which, once it is in operation, it must be the interest of all of us to make work as well as possible.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: The House is approaching this subject with a deep sense of its responsibilities, as has been shown by all the speeches which have been made. If I may, I should like to refer to the intervention by the Leader of the Opposition. We are all glad to see him back; he spoke this afternoon with a deep sense of responsibility, and he also put before us a closely reasoned, cogent and effective argument.
It is right that the House should approach this tremendously serious matter in this manner, for we are about to decide the fate for, at any rate, the next decade of about 200,000 Europeans and six million Africans. I think it is the desire of everyone in the House and the country that this question should be settled in the best possible way so as to bring peace, co-operation and understanding amongst all the people.
Unfortunately, there is a strong difference of opinion between us about how that is to be achieved. I am quite sure that the Secretary of State and all those who support him are sincerely of the opinion that this method of federation, introduced now, is the best way of achieving it, and I am sure that they will equally acknowledge that we fear the introduction of federation in this way and at this time.
Moreover, it is right that we should approach this matter in all seriousness because of the great reputation which this country has deservedly had for its colonial policies and, especially, for its recent policies towards certain parts of Africa. The Secretary of State spoke of this Bill and of the decision which the House will reach in a few hours as being a turning point for the whole of Africa. I do not think that is the expression which I should use. I think the Bill marks a decision, but I hope it is not a turning point; I hope we can continue with a policy which has all along been the policy of this country and its Governments.
What has that policy been? We have regarded ourselves in those territories in Africa as trustees for those people. We have gone there, first of all, perhaps, as traders, but then, having taken the responsibility, our policy has been that we will do our best to educate them, to

guide them, until at long last, sooner rather than in the very distant future, they will be able to take part in their own government and ultimately to administer all their own affairs.
Look what has been happening recently. Even if one looks at North Africa, it is in the main the part played by this country which has led to the fact that some new States have been created which have never known independence before. Even in North Africa, I do not know whether the vast area of Libya has ever known independence, but largely owing to this country Libya has it now. It is the same with Cyrenaica. We remember Abyssinia and how we said that the Abyssinians should govern their own country.
Next, there is the Sudan and the tremendous change which has taken place there under our guidance, in the establishment of self-government containing, as the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) reminded us, a multi-racial problem. We are dealing with the problem not in the way in which we deal with it here, with paper guarantees, but with actual guarantees given to the people themselves and especially to those who, as in Southern Sudan, are not as forward as those in Northern Sudan, ensuring that they shall have representation in the Cabinet of the Sudan whatever the circumstances.
If we turn to the other coast, to the west, we see what has happened there. We have come to the conclusion that the people of Nigeria and of the Gold Coast, and now the people of Sierra Leone, are in a position in which they can guide their own affairs. We have guided and helped them until they have reached that position, and apparently there is no doubt in any one's mind that it is the right course to take.
What worries me is that there should be this difference where Africans are living in the same area as Europeans. I should have thought that the very fact that Europeans were living with the Africans, next door to them—and not merely officials, as has been the case on the west coast—would have meant that by their example, their precept and their teaching, they would have done more to bring forward the Africans amongst whom they lived than had been done for


the Africans on the west coast. I should have thought that because these Europeans lived amongst them, the Africans in Central Africa, South Africa or Southern Rhodesia would today have been better prepared to take part in the government of their own affairs than those in Nigeria, the Gold Coast and Sierra Leone. I should have expected that the teaching would have been more direct and more effective. But there it is.
Can there be any doubt that among these Africans in South Africa and Central Afica there is a genuine fear? Even if there were no real ground for that fear, we should have to recognise that it exists, to pay attention to it and to do our best to deal with it; but there can be no doubt whatever that there are genuine grounds for that fear. The very fact of the great trek which has been celebrated recently was sufficient indication of what was happening to those Africans.
We must remember the way in which the Africans have relied upon this Parliament, the Government and this country to give them protection in South Africa, in the same way as we have done in Bechuanaland, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. They have taken refuge in the fact that, over in England, there is the Throne, the Parliament and the people of Britain, who will protect them, and protect them we certainly have done.
Unfortunately, when that protection is handed from this country to those who are there on the spot, they do not, it seems to me, treat the Africans with the same fairness that we in this House do. It is all very well the hon. Member shaking his head, but paper guarantees are no good. What stronger guarantee could we have than was contained in the Order in Council setting up the new State of Southern Rhodesia and giving it self-government? It is a tremendously strong one, but it did not afford protection to the Africans. When we look at the Order in Council of 1923, Clause 28, we find that nothing shall become a law, but that it shall be reserved by the Governor
whereby natives may be subjected or made liable to any conditions, disabilities or restrictions to which persons of European descent are not also subjected or made liable.
That was in the Order in Council, and yet Europeans do not have to carry

passes, and yet, in 1930, the land was divided so that 70,000 square miles went to about 128,000 Europeans and 50,000 square miles to two million Africans.
Again, a year or two later, there was passed what was called the "Industrial Conciliation Measure," differentiating between the European worker and the African worker, no matter how skilled the latter might be. Once this House has parted with its powers, and has delegated those powers to those who are out there, there is no paper guarantee that can safeguard the rights of Africans as this House would desire. So we are challenged on the spot, and we are told, "You have given us this power; what right have you now got to deny it?"
Therefore, with all these questions in mind, one realises the fears that are confronting these people. I dread this experiment, because that is really what it amounts to. So far as the economic side is concerned, I have always conceded that, economically, federation ought to be of benefit to all this area. It should be, and it is part of my doctrine that it should be, because I believe in pushing out frontiers in order to allow people to trade and move freely within a greater area. Therefore, economically, federation is the pattern.
Supposing that I were prepared to accept this experiment, it still cannot work, either politically or economically, without co-operation, good will and a real desire to do away with all those differences which set people apart, and, still more, do away with all those differences which set certain people above others. If this scheme were framed upon the footing of the great clauses to which this country and the then Government were a party when they signed the Declaration of Human Rights, which certainly draws no distinction between one class and another but treats us all as part of the human race, I should think that we would all welcome federation.
What I now want to say is that I have fears. I hope my fears are mistaken. No doubt, this Bill will receive a Second Reading and will go on to become law. I pray that I am wrong in my present fears, and that the hopes of those who differ from me will be justified.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: I think the whole House will echo the closing words of the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Clement Davies). I should like, before moving to my main argument, to comment on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smeth-wick (Mr. Gordon Walker), because I do not think that anyone, certainly on this side of the House, will dissent from the wise and statesmanlike words which he used on the issue of the Protectorates.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelyingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) rightly said that this was a time for decision; it is also a time for frankness. More trouble is caused in this world by the obscurities of well-meaning people than anything else, and I think that the speech of the right hon. Member for Smethwick has done a notable service in what has already been a high-level debate.
Federation points the only way out of the dreadful dilemma overhanging the whole African continent. I could not help feeling, during the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, how much happier and easier the atmosphere of this place would have been if the right hon. Gentleman had made his wise and moderate counsel, to which we have listened this afternoon, available during the last week, and, as a very humble back bencher, I should like to say to him how delighted I am to see the right hon. Gentleman back.
As I understood his speech, it was to the effect that African fears exist. Nobody denies that they exist, and, therefore, that was a reason for delay, but the right hon. Gentleman did not question whether, in fact, the fears were justifiable. No doubt, it is true that, among native African leaders, there are doubts and fears about the extension of Malanism north of the Union, but I do not think that we should forget that there are also European fears.
There is the fear of people of our own blood and bone, who have established their homes principally in Southern Rhodesia, but also in Northern Rhodesia, that, some time or other, a great black tidal wave will sweep over the country in which they are now living. What we have to do is to resolve the dilemma and find a way out, and this

scheme does find a way out. I cannot see any workable alternative to it. I would go so far as to say to the Leader of the Opposition that Africa has many friends in this House and country, but time is not one of them. This scheme gives promise of a great new State in Central Africa, adding immensely to the strategic and economic strength of the Commonwealth, and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has admitted that there was something in the economic argument.
Indeed, the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that the economic arguments for federation were attractive. That is an under-statement. I would say, certainly with reference to the Northern Territories, that the economic arguments are imperative. Throughout our debates on federation too little attention has been paid to that argument.
I have in my possession the Third Interim Report of the Development Coordinating Commission of Southern Rhodesia over which Sir Miles Thomas presided. The Commission started their deliberations almost as soon as the war was over and devoted their attention to the problem of developing Southern Rhodesia. It is interesting to note that in this Interim Report, published in 1949, about three years after the Commission had started work, the Commission said:
Your Commission does not presume to pronounce on the pros and cons of the project.
They were speaking, of course, of the possibility of federation.
They went on:
They will be fully ventilated in other places. What we do respectfully emphasise is the prime necessity for a quick decision to be taken. If the economy of Southern Rhodesia—the largest and most advanced of the three areas—is to be allied to those of the neighbouring territories, a different conception entirely will be necessary in comparison with what will produce optimum results if she stays in isolation.
It is perfectly true that this Report was published from the point of view of developing the prospects of Southern Rhodesia, but this argument, which was put forward in 1949, applies with even greater force to the two Northern Territories.
It is quite clear that the development of all three Territories is conditioned by the fulfilment of three basic requirements.


They are, first, the extension and coordination of communications, secondly, the proper and economic use of African labour, and, thirdly, the effective conservation of soil and water. Those are the three vital considerations and no single Territory can tackle those problems alone. The Territories are inter-dependent and their whole economy clings to the single railway line which runs from the Copper Belt to the coast of Portugese East Africa.
On Monday the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) poured scorn upon my contention that, as far as the African was concerned we were dealing here with backward communities. The whole object of my introducing this side of the argument is to show that unless we pay attention to the economic factor, unless we are prepared to set in motion economic development of a kind that will expand the wealth of the three Territories, there is no hope whatsoever of raising African living standards and thereby ensuring that the African can enjoy the full, adult political status that all of us, on both sides of the House, desire that he should have.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: I think the hon. Member would admit that in the Union of South Africa the economic development is greater even than in Southern Rhodesia but that the condition of the Africans, the colour bar, the way in which the Africans are treated as being less than human beings—all these things are more severe in the Union than they are in the Rhodesias.

Mr. Braine: Yes, but we are not dealing with the Union of South Africa. There is an important distinction. We are dealing here with the Rhodesias. What is the alternative?

Mr. John Dugdale: I will give it.

Mr. Braine: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman can give us a whole host of views on the subject and I hope that he will have the good fortune to be called later.
The alternative, assuming that there is no federation, is that Southern Rhodesia would decide to go her own way. She would develop in her own way in spite of the limitations imposed upon her. The two Northern Territories would stagnate. Here we have three land-locked Terri-

tories dependent upon the same outlet to the sea and no one territory can develop fully without the material cooperation of the other.
The greatest prospect of all from Central African Federation is that these Territories will be enabled to provide a world which is crying out for raw materials, particularly minerals, with the fruits of their soil. These Territories are rich in copper, coal, mica, asbestos and a whole range of other minerals for which the world is crying out. But development does not only mean the exploitation of minerals for the benefit of the rest of the world. The populations of the two Northern Territories are expanding at a prodigious rate and are outrunning the means of their own subsistence.
In 1949, an Inter-Territorial Hydro-Electric Power Commission was appointed by the Central African Council to investigate hydro-electric projects in the area. The Commission reported early in 1951 in favour of the construction of a dam and power station at the Kariba Gorge, on the Zambesi River. That project would supply electricity to enable both Northern and Southern Rhodesia to develop all manner of production, to provide fertilisers for African soil, and to promote a whole range of industrial developments which are essential if the African is to be drawn into a European economy and if he is to be given proper status and to be allowed to feel that he is part of this new, growing Rhodesia.
It is interesting to observe, also, that in Northern Rhodesia the Commission considered a second scheme, to generate power from the Kafue River, a tributary of the Zambesi. No decision has been reached as to which scheme should be started first, precisely because nobody has responsibility for so deciding. The Inter-Territorial Commission has now been dissolved and these two worth-while schemes, at least one of which must be put into operation if there is to be economic development of Central Africa, are being held up.
Until we have federation it will be impossible to resolve such questions as the provision of a west coast port for the Rhodesias and the harnessing of the waters of the Zambesi. If our motive is to speed economic development so that it


is possible to reduce the difference between communities and to raise the status of the primitive African community which is striving for a place in the sun, the only way to achieve that result is by intensive economic development which will provide wealth, which, in turn, will supply the educational, social and public health requirements which we all wish to see provided. It is the only way in which it can be done.
I repeat what I said earlier. Africans have many friends in this House but time is not one of them. But I feel that this matter is so urgent that if we do not go forward now, and we lose the opportunity which is presented to us, great disaster will come to both black and white in Central Africa. For that reason I support the Bill.

6.41 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: The hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) asked what it was that the Africans feared and whether their fears were justified. Apart from anything else they fear being handed over, as regards many of their activities, to dictatorship by the local white population. The local white population may be benevolent dictators but if the Bill goes through they are to be given, in many respects, dictatorial powers. That is one thing.

Mr. Braine: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to be honest with the House. I would remind him that there are safeguards, and that the whole scheme has to be revised in not fewer than seven years and not more than 10 years. How can he say, therefore, that the fears are based upon anything of a tangible character?

Mr. Dugdale: As regards safeguards, I have the words of no less an authority than Sir Godfrey Huggins, who described the African Affairs Board as "Gilbert and Sullivan without the music."

Mr. Braine: What is replacing it?

Mr. Dugdale: As regards the other point raised by the hon. Member, alteration in the Constitution after a certain period, no such alteration can take place without the consent of the local white settlers, who have a majority in both Legislative Councils. It is folly to think there can be any hope of the Africans

suddenly, at the end of five or 10 years, getting an improvement in their political situation. They cannot get it without the consent of the local white population. If these agree that there shall be more Africans, that is all right, and there will be an alteration in the Constitution; but if they do not agree, nothing that we on this side of the House can do in 10 years' time will be of any avail. Naturally, they fear, and have every reason to fear, these things.
The Leader of the Opposition asked why there was such haste. I would echo his words. Why is it that we are considering a Bill of this character, such a short Bill, in such a short time? Is it that, as in the case of the Transport Bill, the Government's masters outside have set a time-limit and have said that the Bill has to go through in a certain time? It looks like it. Why is this such a very short Bill? We are not setting up a new county borough, but a new country with millions of inhabitants; yet look at the Bill. Look at the main Clause. It says:
… provide for the establishment of a Federal Government, a Federal Legislature, an African Affairs Board, a Federal Supreme Court and such other Federal authorities as may appear to Her Majesty to be necessary or expedient.
It reads like a woman's shopping list more than a Bill, like a collection of things put together without any argument or organisation at all. It is an insult to the House that a Bill of this character should be brought before it.
Let us compare the India Bill of 1935. India is indeed a much bigger country and had greater problems than Central Africa, but that was a Bill of 321 Clauses and 10 Schedules, and the Second Reading alone occupied four days. What is the difference? The main difference is that the India Bill gave more power to an Asiatic people and this Bill gives more power to the settlers over an African population. The India Bill was certainly introduced by a Conservative Government, but it was opposed by a very large number of Conservatives, including the present Prime Minister, who took a great deal of trouble in putting down Amendments. I notice that he does not even consider it worth while to attend the discussion of this Bill, which is handing power over large numbers of Africans to the local white population.


He does not take the trouble to be present during any part of the debate.
Then the hon. Member for Billericay talked about the economic benefits. I am sorry that he is not in his place because there are one or two points I would like to counter. We are always being told about the great economic benefits that will come when federation is brought in, and of all the economic benefits which do not come because there is no federation. Can he tell us of the construction of a single railway or road that has been held up? Can the Undersecretary tell us honestly that the hon. Member for Billericay is correct when he says that the Kariba Gorge scheme was held up because federation had not taken place? It is pure folly to say that there could not be co-operation between those countries if they desired, without federation. There are certain people at the head of two of the countries concerned who do not want economic co-operation unless they can get political power. That is why there has not been co-operation in the past.
I do not want to dwell on the economic problems. I have spoken about them before. I want to say a word about partnership. I welcome, as I think everybody must, the statement of the Colonial Secretary about the new university. It is the first piece of light that we have had on an otherwise very dark scene. It is an excellent thing that he should be able to make that announcement. I welcome, too, the speech made recently by Sir Godfrey Huggins. I have had occasion very frequently in the past to criticise Sir Godfrey Huggins's speeches, but I welcome the one in which he was reported in "The Times" newspaper in these words:
It was hoped it would be possible to remove or modify some of the discriminatory legislation for Africans who had become civilised, and a committee was examining the position.
I hope that that committee will report quickly, and that something will be done.
If the Bill goes through, Sir Godfrey Huggins will be victorious. He will be powerful. I hope he will also be generous, because on his generosity depends in no small measure the future of that country. Many hon. Members may have

read a very fine book called "Cry, The Beloved Country," the preface of which mentioned two men. One was Mr. Hofmeyr, who had done more to help to solve inter-racial problems than anybody else in South Africa. The other was Sir Ernest Oppenheimer. who could do more. Sir Godfrey Huggins is in the position today of Sir Ernest Oppenheimer: he could do more. The question is: will he?
Has the Minister who is to reply to the debate, seen the interesting letter in the "Observer," quoting from the original Bill introduced as long ago as 1883, in which the Indian Charter was laid down? It states:
No native of India or natural-born subject of Her Majesty shall be disabled from holding any place, office or employment by reason of his religion, place of birth, descent or colour.
It is 70 years since that principle was laid down for India. Would it not be possible today to lay it down for the new Rhodesian Federation? If it were possible, it would be a very great move in the right direction, something that would follow on the new university scheme and which would give tangible proof that the new rulers were determined that there should be no colour bar, but equality for all regardless of race.
Last Friday we had a debate on the general question of the colour bar, and the most remarkable thing about it was that although there were divisions of opinion as to the method, there was unanimity of opinion on both sides of the House as to the means, which were, as stated in the Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway):
That this House, recognising that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that they are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood, declares its opposition to all discriminatory practices based upon colour throughout the British colonies, protectorates and trusteeship territories. …
The right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary said that he agreed with that. I should like to know whether Sir Godfrey Huggins agrees with it and whether he will state publicly that he does. If he does so, then it might do much to remove African misgiving today. As the right hon. and


learned Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party said, we all hope that if this scheme is brought in it will succeed and will bring prosperity and happiness to the African people.
I hope that those of us who are gravely disturbed at these proposals will be proved to be wrong and that this new country will succeed. I wish it every success and hope that there will be a real partnership between the races. That is what I hope, but I fear that, instead, we are today witnessing the opening scenes of a terrible tragedy that begins in haste and hope, but will end in frustration, in bitterness and despair.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: It is rather a pity that the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), with whom I have crossed swords before on this issue, should have chosen today to depart from the extremely high level and constructive nature which this debate has so far taken. During his remarks he had the effrontery to say that he was echoing his leader's words. We all heard both speeches, and if he can say that his speech echoed the words of his leader this afternoon, then he must have a very curious notion about the meaning of the word "echo."
But I do not think we need take the right hon. Gentleman's remarks very seriously, because he has at least been consistent on one point throughout the various debates on this subject—that he is quite clearly opposed to federation. For him, it is not merely a matter of timing. He has told us today about the colour bar, and so on, but I do not believe that in his heart he is genuinely in favour of federation in the same way as are not only the Leader of the Opposition, but a large number of hon. Members opposite who have contributed to these debates. He holds a rather lonely position when it comes to the people who have contributed to these debates during the last few months.

Mr. J. Dugdale: I am certainly in favour of federation if it can be brought about through a general system of partnership, but not if it means white domination over Africans, and if it is imposed against the will of the Africans.

Mr. Bennett: If the right hon. Gentleman is genuinely in favour of federation

I can only say that from the most careful scrutiny of his speeches I cannot find a single sentence uttered by him on this topic which has not been destructive—

Mr. Archer Baldwin: And bitter.

Mr. Bennett: —and bitter, as I am reminded by my hon. Friend. If the right hon. Gentleman really wishes to see the colour bar and other matters which we all abhor disappear, I can only suggest that his contributions to our debates are calculated to produce the exact opposite and to bring about further strife.
Without wasting further time on that particular effort, I will now turn to the more serious aspect of whether we are justified at this time in pressing ahead with this scheme. Hon. Members know how deeply I feel on this issue, having lived in Africa and having a small measure of personal responsibility in view of my time there, in trying to make up my mind on this point. I think it is generally agreed that the old idea about our being the schoolmaster of the territories which we rule and reign over throughout the world is now by general consent being altered to one of trusteeship. If we can quite fairly judge this issue from the point of view of a trustee then, I think, that is the manner in which we should decide our future course of action.
I am not so much concerned today about the economic arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) this afternoon, because the vast majority of us are convinced that they are good arguments. But if one is a trustee, one has a beneficiary, and it is not merely a matter of seeing whether his particular trust is likely to go up or down in value. One also has to have regard to the wider issues involved.
So, if it can be said that the black African fears and anxieties are not justified, then I think we are entitled to go ahead in our capacity as trustees, taking into account such opposition as exists, but not allowing it to be the decisive factor regarding whether we finally say yea or nay to this scheme. The overwhelming consideration should be whether the anxieties that are being expressed, not only in this House but in some churches


and throughout parts of Africa, are likely to be justified in the event.
A whole series of anxieties has been expressed both by many Africans and by some people in this country belonging to the Liberal, Labour and Conservative Parties as to whether, in fact, we are taking away any of the responsibilities which belong to the territorial Governments. I refer particularly to land tenure to which the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) specifically referred earlier today. It has been said repeatedly—I hope it will not be necessary to keep on saying it—that land tenure is one of the things which causes so much fear in the African mind in connection with the scheme for federation and yet it seems necessary continually to bring up this question, although it has been put into the Constitution that land tenure is preserved to the territorial Governments.

Mr. C. Davies: I only used that as an illustration when I reminded the House that in the Order in Council which set up the Southern Rhodesian Parliament it was specifically stated that there should be no distinction between the African and the European to the detriment of the African, but that it was of no use whatsoever in stopping the Southern Rhodesian Parliament.

Mr. Bennett: I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that my remarks were not directed specifically to himself on this point. I was not suggesting that he was not giving it as an illustration. But it would be a bad thing if any words of his could be interpreted as meaning that anybody in this House seriously thought that this scheme might interfere with land tenure. If we are agreed on that, then we are on common ground on that point. As a matter of fact, the functions of the three territorial Governments, specifically the two about which we are worrying today, are not, in fact, impaired by any of the points which directly reflect on African interests, and I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that in the course of his remarks. Where direct black African interests are affected the functions of the territorial Governments are left alone.
Another general fear which has been expressed is that this scheme would mean

some decline in the present political and free status of the Africans in that area. That is an even deeper and more profound issue for us to consider. If one examines it that argument, too, is shown to be quite false. In this scheme there is not a single Clause—in either the constitution or the Bill we are considering —which takes away one jot or tittle of the political power which the native African enjoys in those Territories today. That is absolutely clear.
Another aspect of the present fears with regard to the rights of the native Africans is seen if we look at the Legislatures of the three countries. We have heard quite a lot of criticism about the fact that out of the 36 Members of the future Federal Parliament only six will be black Africans. It has been pointed out by some that this is a ridiculously small proportion, because twenty-nine thirtieths—I have calculated this while listening to the debate—are black and yet their representation in the House to be will be only one-sixth.
Most of us would not agree that one can arrive at a proper representation in Parliament purely by counting heads in primitive territories. It will be appreciated that one must give a rather more careful consideration than that in the case of people in a certain stage of primitive development. But even if it were right to do that, there is no one on the benches opposite who has the right to criticise and say that one-sixth is far too small a proportion in view of the fact that twenty-nine thirtieths of the population are black.
For let us in this connection look at the record of the past Labour Government. I do not blame them, because in the primitive state of the territories to which I shall refer I believe that their action was quite right. In 1948, the Labour Government fixed the minimum number of black and white members in the Northern Rhodesian Parliament and Legislative Council. They fixed the number of black members as two, out of 23. That is one-twelfth, to the nearest main fraction. If it is true that one-sixth is too small in this Federal case it seems rather a shame that hon. Members opposite did not complain when the black proportion for Northern Rhodesia was fixed at one-twelfth. Moreover, the proportion of black to white in Northern Rhodesia is


overwhelmingly more strong than in Southern Rhodesia or in the Federation as a whole. There the proportion of black people is forty-four forty-fifths and yet the late Government thought that one-twelfth was a sufficient representation for the black people on the Legislative Council.
Then there is the case of Nyasaland. There the proportion of black people is five hundred and ninety-nine six-hundredths, and yet, once more, the late Government thought that two-nineteenths —or one-tenth—was a suitable proportion for the black representation.
I produce these figures only to show that it is utterly ridiculous to attempt to settle this question by the mere counting of heads. Above all it is not fair for hon. Members opposite to argue on the basis that the black representation is too small when we consider the record of their Government over the last six years.

Sir Leslie Plummer: I have followed the hon. Gentleman's mathematics with some interest, and no doubt he has made his point, but does he not agree that there were more black representatives in the Northern Rhodesian Parliament than in that of Southern Rhodesia, where there were none at all?

Mr. Bennett: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman intervened: he has now made my next point.
Far from this Federal scheme indicating a retreat on behalf of the black interests in these countries, it is an advance. In future, the proportion will be one-sixth, which is more than it has ever been in the Southern Rhodesian Parliaments. If the hon. Member is anxious about the black interests he should be pleased, because under this scheme they will have a better representation than ever before.
It is fair to say that we are not removing a single power which is now possessed and administered by native Africans. All we are doing is transferring a certain number of powers, now exercised by this House and by Whitehall, to the white European population on the spot. We have a good precedent for this. All we are doing is to give certain powers to an elected House over there—a House which is elected in the main by the white population in all three Territories and which will continue to be so elected under

the Federal scheme until the primitive people achieve a greater degree of development.
In 1948, the Labour Government handed over to an unofficially elected majority of white members in the Northern Rhodesian Parliament powers which had previously been exercised by Whitehall. Today, we are doing just the same thing in respect of these three Territories. Why, then, should there be all this moaning about interference?

Mr. James Griffiths: I was hoping that the hon. Member would correctly state what was done. He has only partly done so. Certain powers were given to the European elected members, but substantial reserve powers were left in the hands of the Government and, through the Government, the Secretary of State. The hon. Member should mention that fact.

Mr. Bennett: I should certainly have mentioned it, but I had no thought of repeating a point upon which I had no thought of being challenged by hon. Members opposite, because, of course, similarly, powers are reserved under the federal scheme. When the right hon. Gentleman was putting through a federal scheme, in the early stages, before his attitude was modified by time and other causes, he took great care—for which I admired him—to ensure that substantial reserve powers remained with this country. I think he would agree that the bulk of those reserve powers are still maintained under the federal scheme.

Mr. Griffiths: Mr. Griffiths indicated dissent.

Mr. Bennett: If there is a dispute then I am content the lawyers will interpret the effect of the scheme. If what I have said is correct—that all we are doing is transferring powers which are now possessed by Whitehall to locally elected white European members and not taking powers from the Africans—the only way in which it can be said that that change represents a constitutional decline in the position of the black Africans is by imputing to ourselves a higher degree of responsibility, care and protection for the native African than that of the whites on the spot. That is a fairly serious charge to make against our kinsmen overseas, but that is what the Opposition's case must be.


It cannot be that we are taking away certain powers from the black Africans. It can only be that we are transferring powers now possessed by England to British subjects over there who cannot be trusted as much as we can.

Sir Richard Acland: Quite right.

Mr. Bennett: I am glad to have the support of the hon. Member.

Sir R. Acland: The white people on the spot—that is the terrifying thing— have an economic vested interest in the low wage economy which we have not. It is not because we are morally better than they, but we are to some extent free from the very powerful subconscious pressures that that state of affairs brings to bear on the white settler population out there.

Mr. Bennett: I really have not the time to argue that, although I should be prepared to if I had, but I do not accept for a moment that their sense of responsibility is likely to be affected more than ours by economic causes. If it is to be said that they have an economic interest in the low wage structure to produce goods more cheaply, I would ask the hon. Gentleman, what about us in Malaya, where we earn more dollars than anywhere else? Is it to be said that we shall oppose advances in Malaya because we have an economic advantage in a low wage structure in Malaya? I really cannot follow that line of argument now, which I think is a rather individual one.
I want to say a word about the question of the settlers, for I feel very deeply upon it, as I have lived many years among those people. It is really not fair of us constantly to make these charges about the "white settlers." Who are these so-called "settlers "? I have often wanted a definition from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite of the term "settler." This vague term seems to denote'a sort of man who is supposed to be so much less capable of looking after the interests of his country than we are.
For how many generations does a family have to live in a land before a generation need no longer be called "settlers"? Does a family have to live

in a land for one generation, two generations or three generations? When does a settler become a responsible person able to conduct his country's affairs in a legislative council without incurring the bias against settlers that there seems to be among hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite? Perhaps one day we shall have an answer from them about when a settler ceases to be a settler and becomes a responsible person in his country's public affairs. Perhaps it will be helpful when we do.
It is a very curious bias that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to have against settlers, particularly a curious thing in them. I wonder what they would say if it were to be said by anyone on this side that no one could be a responsible Member of this House and capable of taking a part in looking after England's affairs unless his family had lived for two or three or four or five generations in England?
There are some hon. Members, not a few opposite, whose families have not been in this country nearly as long as the families of friends of mine in Southern Rhodesia have lived out there. I am not going to develop this line of argument, but I think that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen ought to be careful, who suggest that certain people are irresponsible and incapable of conducting affairs if their families have not lived for such and such a time in a country.
My right hon. Friend made a most urgent appeal, echoed by the Leader of the Opposition, that now that the scheme has gone through and been approved by the House, by a majority that is convincing in view of the very small difference between us in numbers, that we should all work towards making this Federation scheme a success. As a humble back bencher I would add my voice to that appeal for support to be given to the plan so that it may be a success. It is. first of all, in the national interest. I think we are all agreed about that, for it is for the economic and political advancement of those Territories.
It would be tragic if our conflicts here, on this or any other matter, were to affect our policy there. That would lead to fresh outbreaks of trouble. It would be fatal if we were to allow differences that have obtained here to affect our policy


there. We try to keep foreign affairs out of party political controversy. Recently, very regrettably, colonial affairs have become involved in our party disputes. I am sure that all of us who have the interests of the Commonwealth at heart will agree that it would be a tragic and fatal thing if in our colonial policy we were to say, or it seemed to others that we were saying, "If and when a Labour Government come to power we shall do great things for the African population, and when the Conservative Party are in power we shall do great things to sustain the white population." That could lead to the most appalling trouble.
I can assure hon. Gentlemen that there is a grave danger that that will occur. Those of us interested in this subject have seen in the newspapers, letters and articles which give rise to this anxiety. If and when they come into office, right hon. Gentlemen opposite will have seriously to consider this constitutional position. I do not want a Labour Government to be embarrassed—I really mean this—by a whole series of miniature Boston Tea Parties, if and when there is another Labour Government.
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite really must not give the impression that they will do in a matter of this sort what they say they will do in domestic policy, that is, undo what their predecessors in office have done. If now they talk about irresponsible settlers, then, if and when they become the Government again, they may find it very awkward to deal with those people they now abuse.

7.15 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: This is my first intervention in the many debates that have taken place on this question. I am very grateful that I have caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, because I hope to give not only my own point of view but the registered point of view of thousands of people in Scotland.
Lanarkshire, from which I come, has had long associations with the continent of Africa. David Livingstone came from Blantyre, a man who is revered, and to whom we have a national memorial in his old home in that village. He is revered not only in Lanarkshire, but revered and loved in Africa, too.
I wanted to refresh my memory a little on the work of that man, and I went to

the Library of the House and I found what I think is his latest biography, a book called "Livingstone the Liberator." I discovered that his mother's family hailed from Shotts, which the writer describes as being
… a parish in the bleak uplands of Lanarkshire in the midst of Covenanting country.
I have lived in that parish all my life, and it is a part of the constituency which I have the honour to represent in this House. It may be bleak upland country. I do not contradict that at all, but there is not anything bleak or cold about the people who live there or those who lived there before them. They are warm hearted, generous people, and they have within them the spirit of the old Covenanting days. That, I say to the Undersecretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, is a spirit that abhors injustice, or even seeming injustice, wherever injustice is perpetrated.
David Livingstone, through his life, showed that he had that spirit to the full. He demonstrated it in his own words, and I want to quote them:
In the flow of love that Christianity inspires, I resolved to devote my life to the alleviation of human misery.
I found in the book I referred to a passage in which the writer was describing the work of David Livingstone. I would ask the Under-Secretary of State to pay attention. He may think that what I have said so far has very little relevance to the Bill—

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): I assure the hon. Lady that I am paying attention. I could quote what she said. She said that David Livingstone had in full the spirit of justice. She said that he had resolved to devote his life to the alleviation of human misery. I am paying attention.

Miss Herbison: I am very grateful indeed. It seems as though the Undersecretary is fortunate in being able to pay attention and carry on a conversation at the same time.

Mr. Foster: I can.

Miss Herbison: I just say that the hon. and learned Gentleman is very fortunate indeed. I want to quote now a passage from this book. It says:
The slave trader was pushing in from east and west. The whites in the south were year


by year absorbing more and more of the lands of the native peoples. It was surely Providential that just at this juncture there should have arrived in Africa a man of such dynamic personality, so equipped in mind and body, so understanding of spirit, so completely self-disregarding, so filled with a passion for justice and right.
That man and that man's life in Africa had a very great effect indeed. It brought millions of Africans to regard the British people as their friends, to regard the British people as men and women who understood them and whose only desire was to help them along the road to real economic, political and social freedom.
When I read that, I began to contrast that picture of Livingstone's character with what I had come to regard as the personality of our present Colonial Secretary. I am very glad indeed today that the Colonial Secretary behaved as a statesman, that he was so different today from what he was on Monday, that he was so different today from what he has been, time and time again in this House when this serious question has been discussed. When questions from these benches have been asked to obtain clarification of this problem, I say that, with almost the exception of today, he has appeared to me haughty and arrogant. I felt that a man who could be haughty and arrogant with a man like my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) was not the type of man to have the future of these millions of Africans almost in his hands.
It is because of that, that I am so grateful today that the Colonial Secretary has appeared in a different light. When I looked at this book and found that it was called, "Livingstone the Liberator," I felt until this afternoon—and I think I have still to be proved wrong in what will follow—that in my wildest imaginings I could not think of a book being published in 50 or 100 years' time which would have for its title, "Lyttelton the Liberator."
In Scotland, I do not think that I have ever found at any time since I have been interested in the affairs of this nation and of wider affairs such great interest evinced by so many people as has been evinced over this question of African federation. There have been meetings in our four cities—meetings that have been crowded—and there had been meetings in many of our towns and villages.
In Glasgow, a meeting against federation was held and there was an attendance of 1,500 people. In that same city, a meeting was held by those who believe in federation and, although the hall could hold 600, there were present, including the platform party, 13 people. I want the Minister to realise—and perhaps he does realise—that these meetings have not been politically inspired—not one of them. The main impetus has come from the churches in Scotland and it has come particularly from the Church of Scotland itself. Many presbyteries have passed resolutions, and Members of Parliament and possibly the Colonial Secretary have been given copies of those resolutions.
At the beginning of this week, the Presbytery of Perth had a meeting and sent on a resolution which they passed against federation. In this morning's "Glasgow Herald," I read a report of the meeting of the Presbytery of Aberdeen—I think that it must have been held last night—and there again they spoke and decided against federation at this time. Those people in the Church who have supported this movement against federation at the present time have not been supporting it merely from sentiment.
Opinion is not uninformed opinion in the Scottish church. They have had at their presbytery meetings and they have had in the Church of Scotland the benefit of men who have given a long period of their lives in service in Africa. So the opinions they are expressing and the opinions they have tried to bring to the notice of Members of this House and of the Government are opinions based on the knowledge of men and women who have worked amongst Africans, and who know that it is a bad thing indeed today for the Government to hurry through this Bill for federation.
Yesterday I, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) and the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), of a different political party, along with the Rev. Galbraith from a Glasgow church, who has spent many years in Africa, went to the Palace with a petition signed by almost 27,000 Scottish people, men and women of all political opinions and, perhaps, some of them of no political opinions.
That petition was not accepted at the Palace gates but the Secretary of State for Scotland very graciously accepted it


and promised to see that it got to the right quarter. I want to emphasise that the signatures were not got through political inspiration, and that among them are the names of men and women who support the party opposite. But they are the signatures of men and women who realise the grave dangers that may come if federation is carried through as the Government propose.
In Command Paper 8233, paragraph 35 states:
We have constantly borne in mind that whatever is proposed must be designed not only to promote the well-being of the territories and their inhabitants but also to be acceptable to the inhabitants and to the Governments and Legislatures concerned.
That seems to me the most crucial issue facing this House today, because that is the one promise given in this Command Paper to the Africans that we would not go forward with federation until the inhabitants found it acceptable.
The Bill and what flows from the two Command Papers 8753 and 8754 have completely ignored the promise. Surely it is natural that the Africans should be suspicious and resentful when they find this most crucial promise broken by the Government. They must feel that their desires have been simply ignored, and they will naturally be suspicious of any guarantees given by the Government. The Secretary of State said that they were massive safeguards. We believe the safeguards have been whittled down, but, the specific promise having been broken, even if the safeguards are massive, the Africans have the right to believe that the safeguards about which the Secretary of State speaks and which are in black and white in various White Papers may be broken as the promise was.
The Secretary of State on Monday emphasised that the protectorate status of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia is specifically preserved. But what could have been more specific than the words which I quoted from the original White Paper issued by the Labour Government? In "The Times" of 14th April there was an article which said that the "Die Transvaler," the South African Nationalist newspaper, referred to the British standpoint that protectorates could not be incorporated in the Union unless and until native opinion is in favour of it. The Minister stressed the specific safeguards on Monday. The article added

that if the British Government proceeded with federation in the north against the will of non-Europeans the argument would no longer be valid.
I am trying to show the real fear in the minds and hearts of the Africans and their natural suspicion about the further safeguards which are promised in view of the breaking of the promise that federation would not take place if they did not support it.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Will the hon. Lady give the exact reference of the promise which she says was given?

Miss Herbison: I do not know whether the hon. Member was in the Chamber when I began my speech. However, the reference is paragraph 35 of Command Paper 8233. It could not be more specifically stated than it is there.

Mr. Macpherson: It is a recommendation to the Secretary of State: not a promise by him.

Miss Herbison: A promise was definitely given in that White Paper and it was given by my right hon. Friend who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies.
Even at this late stage the Government would be wise to delay the Measure. It has been suggested in various quarters that we may have delayed long enough, that no matter how long we delay, the Africans will not change their minds, that they are conservative in their outlook and that delay would not bring any benefits. The history of Africa over the last 50 years has disproved that the Africans are conservative. During the last 50 years the Africans have changed their way of life almost completely.
We find that Africans on the whole speak the language of the industrial areas to which they go rather than the language which belonged to their former areas. Africans have gone to work underground in conditions which could not be more different from their previous conditions. They have accepted an economy based on money instead of barter. They have accepted Christianity, and now a form of nationalism which was not thought of even a few years ago. All this proves that the Africans are not


so conservative as many people have tried to prove but are a virile, progressive and adventurous people who can adapt their way of life to the circumstances of Africa.
It is because I feel this so strongly that I urge the Government even at this late stage to delay these proposals so that time may be allowed, as my right hon. Friend said earlier, to show the Africans what we really mean by partnership. We must show the Africans specific things, not promises in White Papers but real action; we must show them that we believe in a real partnership. If we had time to do that, ultimately the Africans would support federation. Like most of my hon. Friends, I am not against federation. I believe that great economic good—and from economic good, social good—can come from federation, but even economic good will not come from it if we have not the willing co-operation of the Africans. A letter in "The Times" today shows that very clearly indeed.
I was delighted when the Secretary of State told us about the university which people of all races will attend, but I was perturbed when I read the Command Paper showing the distribution of expenditure to discover the amount of money which is to be allocated to education. Having been a teacher before I became a Member of Parliament, one of the first things I tried to find was what would happen about the education of the Africans. I found that under the distribution the Federal Government would have £2,000 to spend on African education. I hope I am wrong. I am raising this question and I am willing to say that I am not very sure about it. But here I find £2,000, and I understand that the Federal Government is to be responsible for higher education for everybody in the Federal Territory.
I find also the amounts which have to be given to the three States for education which is not higher education, but when I add the four sums of money together I find that it is much less than is being allocated for non-African education under this distribution of expenditure. There are a far greater number of African children than white children, but a far lesser sum allocated in this distribution of expenditure for the education of

the African children. I hope that I have been mistaken in this, and perhaps the Minister will be able to show when he comes to reply that I have been mistaken.
I would say finally to the Minister that our Queen became Queen when she was in Africa. It seemed to me that that was a splendid opportunity for this Government to show to the Africans that she was in very truth their Queen. But I am sorry that the Government have not allowed this idea to become a reality. They seem to have been determined to make the Africans—and I am dealing with all debates that have taken place— think that they cannot trust us, and I am sorry that that has happened.
I appeal to the Secretary of State. The churches in Africa have built up a feeling of friendship and loyalty to this country. David Livingstone's body was carried from the one end of Africa to the other by the natives. It took them 10 months to do it, but they did it because they knew he desired to be brought home to his own country, and he was given an honourable burial in the Abbey here. He and many people since in the Church and, indeed, some of our white settlers have brought glory to this country. My plea is that that glory, that friendship and that loyalty will not be dissipated by hurrying through the House this Federation Bill.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: I think the Government are right in proceeding with this Measure and I regret to have to disagree with many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House. I recognise that they have very sincere and conscientious feelings on this matter, and I only ask them to believe that I and others also on this side have sincere and conscientious feelings the other way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) appealed both eloquently and with great force—I listened to every word she said with great interest—as I did to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, for delay, but I believe that delay will be construed as hesitation, and that hesitation would be misunderstood in Africa. In matters of this kind the Government of the day must lead and they have decided to put through federation. I hope, however, that they will


leave no stone unturned to explain by every means in their power the real meaning of federation to the African people.
I have really no qualification to speak on this subject as one who has been in Africa, like so many other hon. Members in the House, but I was chairman of a sub-committee of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee which inquired into, and took evidence on, the application of science and technology in colonial affairs. That Committee sat last year, and, although I cannot commit my colleagues who sat with me on this unofficial Committee, I can at least speak for myself. I was very much impressed by the evidence I heard on the need for social and economic development in Central Africa, and how much that social and economic development was thwarted by antiquated administrative units.
There are serious problems in Africa, problems of over-population, under-cultivation and the wrong cultivation of land. There are no standards for the rearing of livestock, and all these things need great educational advancement and investment of capital. In order to do this it is absolutely necessary to have viable economic units.
There is also the need for a bold approach, but it is bound to mean risks. My hon. Friends have told us about the risks, which is true, and these risks may involve the future of the African population if they are not handled rightly. But I say that no statesmanlike act can be accomplished without risk. There are two risks as I see it here. The first is that the Africans will be sullen, hostile and unco-operative and that they will prevent the functioning of the new system. Secondly, there is the risk that the white settlers of Southern Rhodesia will perpetuate racial discrimination and so spoil the atmosphere.
As regards the first, I submit that it is difficult to tell what opinion is in Central Africa. Society is still in too primitive a state for it to be possible for a public opinion to be developed as we understand it in this country and in America and in Europe. Africa is even unlike Asia in this respect where we had similar problems. For instance, in India, Pakistan and Ceylon the problem was whether the

time was ripe for them to have self-government and independence.
There, they have an ancient civilisation with highly developed languages in which to explain things, whereas in Africa, I understand, in many of the languages it is impossible to find a word which describes "federation." This shows that one cannot argue from the one to the other because the conditions are entirely different. Also, large parts of Central Africa are under a tribal system and the tribal chiefs are notoriously conservative and do not like anything that might in any way undermine their position.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), who, unfortunately, cannot be here, has put into my hand, and authorised me to read to the House, a telegram which he received from the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia via the High Commissioner, whose opinion he asked in order to find out what opinion was like there among the Africans. This is what it says:
I shall be grateful if you would inform him that Africans here were never very perturbed over federation. Some have already offered to stand for Federal Parliament. It is believed that African voters for most part voted for federation. I understand that my broadcast after referendum did much to reassure many who had been misled by frequent misstatements.
That shows that opinion is divided and that it is not true to say that the entire body of articulate African opinion is against federation. Possibly the majority of articulate opinion is against it, but a certain section is not and many do not know anything about it.
In a situation of this kind we are trustees and the Africans are our wards. It is the duty of trustees to act in a way that they think will be in the best interests of their wards, and it would be ridiculous to allow the ward to dictate the policy of the trustee.

Dr. H. Morgan: Thousands of miles away.

Mr. Price: The second risk is that which has been expressed by my hon. Friends on this side of the House, and no doubt they have their reasons. It is that the European settlers in Southern Rhodesia will continue the policy of racial discrimination. I do not hold the poor opinion that some of my hon. Friends hold of the European settlers in Southern


Rhodesia. It is true that Sir Godfrey Huggins has said things in the past which would have been better not said, but no doubt he has his difficulties with white opinion. In the main, I reject the view that the Southern Rhodesian white population is no better than Dr. Malan's Afrikaans on racial questions.
The philosophy of that narrow, Calvanistic Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa is foreign to our own kith and kin who learned our traditions here before going out to Central Africa. I believe the bulk of them realise that the African must ultimately reach equality with the European and not be permanently kept out. I think most reasonable people will realise, when they come to study the question, that the process of educating African opinion must take time. Southern Rhodesian white settlers may think it may take a long time and we here may think it will take a shorter time. There is a difference there of degree and not of kind, but between us and South African Afrikaans there is indeed a great gulf fixed.
Nevertheless, there are inequalities of the two Rhodesias which go a long way to explain some of the African opposition to federation. The worst example is in the territory administered by the Colonial Office and not in Southern Rhodesia. I refer to the state of affairs in the Copper Belt, and I was glad to hear what the Colonial Secretary had to tell us about that.
I put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman last week about what action he could take to reduce the colour bar. Naturally, he said that it cannot be abolished by legislation. It is, however, vital for the right hon. Gentleman to use all the influence he can—and it seems that he is using it now—to eliminate racial discrimination. Nothing will do more to prove groundless the fears of those who oppose federation than the progressive reduction of the colour bar in territories administered by Whitehall. It is the task of statesmanship to see that the economic progress which will come to the country through federation marches hand in hand with the reduction of racial inequalities.
This Bill is necessary to guarantee the economic and social advance of Central Africa. First and foremost primary education is necessary to make it possible

to have technical education and, lastly, university education. The trouble is that we cannot get veterinary surgeons to work in those territories among the tribes unless we educate the people of the tribes and get recruits from there, which is almost impossible as things are today
I submit that Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland have not the economic background to make it possible to produce educated people in sufficient time. For that reason the creation of larger units is essential. There is some talk about leaving Nyasaland out of the Federation. That would be disastrous because, according to the figures I have seen, there are only 3,000 whites in the entire territory and a public debt of only £4 million. How can one possibly finance improvements or educational developments under conditions of that kind?
I know it is argued by some of my hon. Friends that the Colonial Development Fund could be used, but that is quite insufficient. About a year ago the "Economist" made an estimate, based on information which apparently it had, that a sum of about £500 million a year needs to be invested in the Colonial Empire and Commonwealth every year. It is all very well to say that we should do that, but the money would have to be found out of savings. If it is not so found, it will lend to inflation. We have either to find that money—or even half of it—out of savings or we have to attract capital from outside. It is our duty as a Colonial Power to do that. We have no right to own those territories if we do not develop them, even if it means stinting ourselves in the process, which it would certainly mean even if we found only half the money ourselves.

Dr. Morgan: The United Africa Company has enough income for that.

Mr. Price: It could not find that amount.

Dr. Morgan: Oh, yes, it could. Let the hon. Member calculate it for himself.

Mr. Price: This Bill provides measures which are vitally needed for Central Africa. The continent of Africa has many different types of territory, climate and population, and it is wrong to argue that what suits one area suits another. In West Africa there are no white settlers, but there is a comparatively well-to-do


peasant population there which has done well on the cultivation of cocoa crops and others. Because education is of a higher standard there, they can go forward rapidly to dominion status, as they are doing.
In North Africa we have an entirely different situation. The people there are in contact with the Arabs. Many of them are partly or entirely Arab and are Mohommedans. They are working under another type of civilisation towards independence and co-operation with the Arab States of the Middle East. In South Africa we have a reversion to a type of Christian philosophy which is, in fact, the very negation of Christianity. In Central Africa we have another type, due to the fact that the climate is suitable to Europeans and due to the fact that the climate makes it difficult for the African to win the produce of the soil as easily as he can on the West Coast. Agricultural conditions over parts of Central Africa are very difficult, as we saw in the groundnut scheme.
The task, surely, in Central Africa, where there is a white population who are largely the means of developing the country's wealth, side by side with a much more primitive type of African, is to advance the African without discouraging the European. It seems to me that federation is the only way in which a political solution can be found, provided the means are there for continual development and the progressive abolition of racial inequality. The West African solution is impossible there yet because things have not developed that far. Unfortunately, it seems that there are some leaders of African opinion who are ignorantly hankering after that now and that is the cause of a great deal of the trouble which has developed. The Government are right not to follow these blind leaders of the blind, but to press on with federation. But let them always keep before their eyes the principle of equal opportunity for both races.
If this Bill goes through I hope that all sections of opinion in this country will combine to make it a success. On this issue we all have conflicting emotions. Let us strive to throw those emotions into the common pool for the good of Central Africa.

8.2 p.m.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) has made a brave speech, which is typical of him, following his convictions —which are not the convictions of the majority of his party—and I congratulate him upon it. He mentioned the question of development of these Territories. I rise tonight, after trying hard to do so during the debate on the White Paper and not being called, because I have lived in one of these Territories for some years and I do know the African side of this problem, although it is some years since I was there.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West may be interested to know that I was breeding almost pure shorthorn cattle 35 years ago in Northern Rhodesia. If I could do it then, surely the opportunity, and the necessity for making the opportunity, for the Africans to do it ought to be made available if that can be done. I agree with the hon. Member that it cannot be done at present through the financial resources of each Territory; it can only be done by increasing culture and particularly increasing education in agriculture.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) made an emotional speech about a former inhabitant of her constituency, David Livingstone. Every Celt responds to a speech from the heart, but I thought she spoilt it by misinterpreting a quotation which she made from the White Paper of March, 1951. That White Paper was a Report of a Conference on Closer Association in Central Africa to His Majesty's Secretary of State, not by His Majesty's Secretary of State. Therefore, the whole burden of the quotation she made was misapplied as it was not a promise by the then Secretary of State but a sentence taken out of a Report of a Conference to the Secretary of State. I will read it once again to make it clear:
We have constantly borne in mind …
That is, the officials who took part in this Conference.
We have constantly borne in mind what whatever is proposed must be designed not only to promote the well-being of the territories and their inhabitants but also to be


acceptable to the inhabitants and to the Governments and legislatures concerned.
Later, the hon. Lady referred to the advantages of delay, but in the same Report, at the end of paragraph 101, it is stated:
We would emphasise once more …
They must have done so before, but I have not been able to find it—

Mr. Archer Baldwin: It is in the previous paragraph, paragraph 100.

Captain Duncan: our very real sense of urgency in this problem of bringing the Central African Territories into an effective form of closer association.
There was the need in 1951 for urgency in dealing with this problem.

Miss Herbison: I am sure the hon. and gallant Member is not accusing me of trying to mislead the House in making this quotation.

Captain Duncan: No.

Miss Herbison: I quite understand that this is a Report of a Conference. It was a Report to the Secretary of State, who at that time was my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). He himself had quoted from this Report because the Government at that time accepted this Report and this part of it. I wish to mention the paragraph which the hon. and gallant Member quoted. Of course all of us feel there is urgency in this matter. I accept the one paragraph; I accept the other. But accepting the second paragraph does not mean hurrying it on in view of so much opposition from Africa.

Captain Duncan: I agree that the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) accepted this as a basis for the next step, but I really think the hon. Lady was exaggerating the impression on the minds of Africans if she got the impression that this was interpreted, or could be interpreted, as a promise. That was the only point I was trying to make.
The hon. Lady, if I may use the term, has been getting mixed up with the Church of Scotland lately, I have seen her name reported in the Press as attending various meetings, and the Palace. The burden of my later remarks will be to try to put an answer to the fears which

have been expressed by various presbyteries and other people attached to the Church of Scotland.
In passing, I would point out that although the presbyteries in my constituency expressed fears, after a meeting I had with them their fears did not entirely dissolve and they did not feel it necessary to approach me further. I admit the fears were there, at Dundee, Aberdeen and Perth, where resolutions have been passed by Ministers and lay representatives of presbyteries.
What are these fears? I do not put the matter in the same way as the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) put it. I do not believe that those are the real fears, that there will be permanent domination by the whites over the blacks. I do not think that is the right way to look at it. I believe there is some sort of underlying fear that the advancing, moving Africa will not get its chance. We have seen various movements all over Africa, especially since the war. They have their dangers; they have their dangers in the Union of South Africa, in Mau Mau in Kenya and so on.
It seems to me that there are two answers to these fears. One is that we have got to achieve a better system of economy for all the peoples in Africa, so that with the increasing population, the increasing needs of the peoples in Africa can be met from the economic point of view. From the political point of view, the dangers of extremism from the left or from the right must be averted.
From the economic aspect I should like to quote from the Report on Communism by the Church of Scotland issued in May last year. It states what the Church of Scotland was then thinking:
To meet this need there is required an enormous effort for the improvement of agriculture in the under developed parts of the world. The pressing need is for the production of more food, but this improvement in agriculture requires a considerable measure of industrialisation and an enormous development in education. Schemes for irrigation, and hydro-electric development, the opening up of new means of transport, the further exploitation of natural resources in order to help pay for capital equipment which must be imported, as well as to provide the amenities of life for the people of the country are all needed. Large numbers of people must be trained as technicians, teachers, doctors, and agricultural experts in order that these schemes may be efficiently operated once they are instituted. In all these regards it is obvious that these lands urgently require the help of the West.


That is a quotation from the Report of the Church of Scotland by the Commission on Communism, dealing with the dangers of Communism unless this economic development takes place. As has already been said, this development cannot take place with the limited resources available at present in these territories.
Let me take another aspect of the opposition of the Church of Scotland. They say that African opinion is unanimously against it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies said that there was undoubtedly a small section of vocal intelligencia in opposition. But the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West said that a large number of these people are still in tribal societies. Their system of life is most primitive.
Where I used to live—I was not an official, I was a farmer—the most primitive kind of life went on in the villages. There was no machinery. The cultivation of the crops was done by women with a hoe; there was not even a plough or an ox. These people, who form the majority in Northern Rhodesia, cannot be expected to understand the intricate system of a constitution such as is in this White Paper. It is wrong to say that African opinion is against the scheme. I say that there is no such thing as African opinion, and what little opinion there is cannot really count in the balance of argument.
The Church of Scotland also fear whether we in this House and the British people in this country, acting as trustees, are going to play fair, whether the safeguards existing in the present constitutions of the territories will be continued, and whether conditions for the Africans in the future will be advanced or retarded. I will not go into great detail on this. The details are all in Cmd. 8754. I appeal to the ministers of the Church of Scotland who have not read this scheme to do so. Whenever I have had an opportunity of reading the scheme and explaining it to them, so far as I could make out, their opposition dissolved. A constitution is a difficult thing to understand. It is difficult for us to understand, but for people outside it is even more difficult.
The safeguards can be listed very briefly as follows: First, it is a federal

constitution and not an amalgamation. That surely is important. Secondly, in the preamble to the White Paper it is distinctly laid down that the three Territories are the rightful home of all lawful inhabitants and that Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland shall continue under the special protection of Her Majesty.
So far as land is concerned, in paragraph 4 of the scheme it is quite clearly laid down that any fears about the transfer or alienation of land are groundless. There is a special provision at the end of paragraph 4 to the effect that no power of compulsory acquisition of land for federal purposes shall be used in relation to any land for the purpose of settling immigrants thereon.
One of my hon. Friends has already dealt with African representation in some detail. There are six African members actually in the new Assembly. That is a change from the original White Paper. There are three Europeans specially concerned with African interests. There are elected members, but there is no reason why, in the fullness of time, as the Africans themselves become qualified to vote, there should not be more in certain constituencies. There is no restriction on the 26 members that they should all be white, and there is no reason why, in due course, further African members should not be elected on an equal basis with the white members.
Then there is the African Affairs Board. That is very important, and I do not think it has been made enough of in these debates. It appears to me that the African Affairs Board have complete control over any federation legislature which can possibly affect the Africans. Paragraph 59 states:
It will be the particular function of the Board to draw attention to any Bill introduced into the Federal Assembly
in which African interests are known or inferred. If there is any part of it which differentiates against African interest at all, it is immediately classed as a differentiating Measure and cannot be passed by the Legislative Assembly, but has to be referred to this Parliament for final approval. The passing of a Bill cannot go any further without reference to this Parliament.
I cannot go into all the details, but the Constitution itself cannot be amended


without a majority of two-thirds on an affirmative vote. A constitutional Bill cannot be assented to by the Governor-General. It has to be sent home for this Parliament to make a final decision. On those grounds of safeguards we have, it seems to me, done everything possible to safeguard the existing position of the African and have made tentative and most progressive steps to advance African interests.
I do not think that it has been before noticed that this is the centenary year of the birth of Mr. Cecil Rhodes. It is appropriate that we should be taking this further step in the history of the Rhodesias in this year. Cecil Rhodes had great ideas and was one of the greatest men Africa has ever known. He had great views about the part that British people could play in the development of Africa and his single-minded determination did untold good to Africa. He made his money there but he spent it for the good of Africa. His policy was not that of a colour bar, but equal rights for all civilised men.
If that cry could go out over the Rhodesias once again I believe it would prove the answer to many of the fears which have been expressed; equal rights for civilised men and not all this talk about colour bars, domination and so on. Let us base our equality on culture and not on the colour of our skins. Federation is a step forward in this policy and one about which I believe the people of this country may be proud. As one who was a settler, if that is the right word to use, and if it is not too unpopular with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, I would say that in my time I have seen immense developments in Africa particularly in the Rhodesias.
We have exploited national resources but there are many resources in these Territories left to exploit. In my experience we have not exploited the native, but the resources. I think it wrong that we white men in this country should decry the white men in Rhodesia. They are not different from us. They are the same people, and they are our own kith and kin. I was one out there, and now I am the same man here. I see no reason for this differentiation between the white man out there and those at home. It is most unfair to suggest as did the hon.

Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) that the white men out there are exploiting the cheap labour of the natives and that the white men here do not exploit cheap white labour. Were it not for the trade union movement which has been built up here in the past, white men would be exploiting white labour in this country. It is exactly the same thing, there is no difference at all.
I personally, and other hon. Members on this side of the House, have always supported the trade union movement as the best means of avoiding the exploitation of labour. I have never objected to the policy of trade union representatives visiting the Colonies and helping real trade union development in those countries. That perhaps is a matter which the new Federation could develop.
The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) ended his speech by hoping for the best but fearing for the worst. I am sorry he has left the Chamber. I regard him as an old man who has lost his courage, and I would appeal to him, as a Liberal and a Progressive, whose party has had such progressive views in the past, not to lose his vision. I would appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite not to lose this vision of empire which we have had in the past and which we must carry into the future if we are to maintain ourselves and do our best as the trustees of these people.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I do not think I have lost my courage, and the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) will find those of us on this side of the House in the same camp with the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) whom the hon. and gallant Member regards as getting old and lacking courage.
This is the sixth and last stage of this two-year debate on Central African Federation and it has been one of the best. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies set the tone of today's debate. I only wish, and I hope I shall not appear churlish when I say it, that he had spoken in the same manner on former occasions.
I have listened to all these debates. I have listened to the Minister and to my


right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). The more I have listened and studied the White Papers and the plans taking shape for this future State in Central Africa the more I am convinced that it is simply old-fashioned capitalism plus a benevolent autocracy. It seems to me that all would be well if the African would only do what he is told, until perhaps he is better educated and has learned to do what he thinks better for himself.
When I hear speeches outside this House by people such as Mr. Van Eeyden, Sir Godfrey Huggins, Mr. Greenfield, Mr. Stockill, and others, the main motivation of the white African—not the white settler, the white African—in Central Africa appears to be to get away from what he alleges to be the domination of the Colonial Office. I hope that the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs will repudiate some of the wilder statements which have been made by leaders of the white Africans in Central Africa.
I do not wish to go over the whole argument of whether federation is a good or a bad thing. I think it is a good thing economically and I did not need the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) to convert me to the economic advantages of federation, but must we federate to get this economic development? Without political federation the Copper Belt of Northern Rhodesia will next year turn out something like £100 million worth of base copper, so that the argument that we must federate politically to get economic development does not hold water when we get down to the facts.
We are told that federation is a good thing for the African, but that he does not quite know what is good for him. I have heard hon. Members opposite and white Africans say that the African is conservative—not 100 per cent. but almost 1,000 per cent. conservative, with a small "c"; that in the 1920s he did not like schools, he did not like white teachers, he did not like hospitals, with their white tiles and smell of ether—he was a little scared of them—but now he dashes to the hospital if he wants a gargle when he has the slightest suspicion of a cold.
We are told that in the old days he was suspicious of the white man's scientific farming, but that now we have "good farming badges" and the Africans are as keen as mustard to farm. We are told

that they did not like education, they did not like our modern methods of farming, they did not like the white man's help, they were suspicious of all these things and that, in the same way, they are suspicious of this political development but they will shake down and in a few years' time, if not earlier, will be quite happy. That is what we are told. But I wonder whether this is quite the same sort of thing.
When I see letters like that from the Bishop of Nyasaland this morning, and when I get other letters from people out there, I wonder whether it is as simple as all that and whether, if it does not come to a show-down, if it is not a matter of making a choice for or against federation, the Africans, even though it may be that only 500,000 out of six million are articulate and politically conscious in this sense, will not follow their own leaders and people of their own pigmentation of skin instead of following the while population who, after all, are aliens, despite the fact that many have been there for generations.
I also enter this caveat: that there is developing a wider Pan-African consciousness just as we have a wider Pan-Arab consciousness from Casablanca to Basra. We have certainly the Pan-African consciousness; they are thinking as Africans and not as people from Nyasaland or from the Gold Coast. When something happens in Enugu it has repercussions in the Orange Free State: if something happens to people in Uganda it is read about and talked about in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia.
I believe that the old type of colonialism is doomed not only there but at the bar of public opinion in the United Nations and elsewhere, and I would emphasise that we on this side of the House do not oppose federation merely because the Africans object to it. It is not fair to say that we object merely because the Africans do not like it. Hon. Members on these benches are often put in a most difficult position by the Government; we are almost spiritually blackmailed because they say, "If you oppose federation you are fomenting discontent in Africa, you are building up the opposition and are doing a disservice not only to the Government but also to the Africans."
If we sincerely believe that there are inadequate safeguards in this constitu-


tion, if we honestly believe that there is a solid body of African opinion which is scared and anxious, it is our duty to speak on the lines which I am following tonight and it is not for the Government to say to us, "You are cads. You are not playing the game. You ought to keep your mouths shut and let federation get going. Let us have a chance to work out what both sides say is economically a good thing."
Why do I say that I feel that this Constitution does not do what it might do? We have often had it said on the other side of the House, and by the Minister himself, that in matters of what one might call the everyday life of the African, that is, his day-by-day activities, he will not be affected by this particular legislation. I have been going down the "Exclusive and concurrent lists," in pages 10 to 13 of Cmd. 8754, and, as a result, after studying this statement that the Territorial Legislatures control these aspects of African life which most closely concern the individual, I do not think it is borne out at all.
Let me take the question of defence. Item 2 opens up the possibility of the conscription of civilian Africans on European farms, as enforced in Northern Rhodesia during, and for six months after the last war. Item 5—citizenship—is connected with the African's right to be a voter, and to be able to influence his daily life by democratic means. Items 18 and 19, relate to railways and the questions of fares and conditions of travelling. Then there are items 27 and 30, concerning water works and higher education. All matters most closely concerned with the day-to-day life of parents and children in Africa and I was most happy today to hear the Secretary of State tell us about this matter of higher education being multi-racial.
It is a wonderful thing, but I would plead with the right hon. Gentleman to use his best efforts to influence his colleagues out there in the matter of secondary education as well. At schools like St. Joseph's Convent, at Dar-es-Salaam, there are mixed races, and it is quite possible to have at secondary school level, whites and blacks together in school, certainly from the ages of 15, 16 or 17 ownards.
I would also ask the Secretary of State about trade unions, and, particularly, the item about federal trade unions, which, I understand, was safeguarded when the Australians received their Federal Constitution, but which, as far as I know has not been done here. There has been no further clarification regarding federal trade unions, though it is stated in the Report that legislation on the unions and upon industrial conciliation remains a Territorial matter.
What is to happen if, shall we say, a well educated senior official, African, of course, in the Northern Rhodesian posts and telegraphs goes to work in Salisbury? I do not know whether the Whitley Council might discuss it. but that Northern Rhodesian African cannot join up with his Southern Rhodesian kinsfolk in joining a federal union. I would ask the Secretary of State, or whoever will wind up the debate, to give us some assurances about these Northern Rhodesians or Nyasalanders who go into Southern Rhodesia, where there are no legal trade unions.
Lastly, may I reinforce the plea of my right hon. Friend the Member for Smeth-wick in this matter of having concrete evidence and facts and deeds before us in the coming months which will give some measure of reassurance to the Africans? I think it was the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) who said that by their deeds we shall know them, and I beg of the Secretary of State that he will use all the powers he can to suggest legislation out there in this matter of the colour bar. I know that legislation will not eliminate the colour bar, but it certainly will set national standards out there by which the people must live.
This new federal government should not give public funds to any schools which are not multi-racial. I also suggest that the Secretary of State should not have any public funds given to hospitals which are not multi-racial. Civil Service posts should be open to competition all over this new federal State. Although the right hon. Gentleman may not be able to do this officially, he might also intimate to white European officials out there that it would not be a good thing if they became members, or remained members, of one-race clubs and that they should mix much more


in clubs with a multi-racial clientele. Racial discrimination should be made illegal.
It is a disgrace to British people that all these things persist as they do. They merely encourage in the African mind the suspicion that the Britisher is indulging in hypocrisy when he talks about equality, partnership and the implementation of new ideas. We on this side of the House originally put forward the Federation scheme, but we always said that we would consult the Africans and that we would not implement it without their consent.

Mr. Beresford Craddock: No.

Mr. Johnson: That is why we on this side boggle at this imposition upon the African people. There is a heavy burden upon the white populations of Africa at this moment. The White Man's Burden in capital letters is now in actual being and I find it difficult to speculate upon the judgment of history on what will happen in the coming months or years.
I oppose this imposition because when I look at the behaviour of Europeans in the Union and in Kenya and many parts of Central Africa I sincerely believe that the white population in that environment have not the moral stamina to safeguard the interests of the African people at the moment. In saying that I am choosing my words carefully.
I plead therefore for some delay until the Africans are more capable of standing on their own feet, until they feel less suspicious of this federation scheme and until they can hold their own in a future multi-racial State in South Africa.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Frederic Harris: If the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) will forgive me I shall not attempt to follow him too far owing to lack of time. I cannot agree with him that it was the view put forward from the start by the Labour Party that they would not bring in federation without the consent of Africans as a whole. I understood that they would introduce federation only on the basis of consultation. I always assumed that I was correct in taking that as the view of the Labour Party.

Mr. J. Johnson: Perhaps I went too far. What I thought I said, or what I intended to say, was that we support this federation scheme, that we were in favour of federation, and that we would have consultations with the Africans, but we had reservations about imposition without the consent and co-operation of Africans themselves.

Mr. Harris: I always assumed that the view which I have just stated was the view of the Labour Party, but I shall not take that argument too far now.
As to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, I think that the reference he made to the university was one that brought pleasure to all of us, and particularly the reference to its basis being that all races should be on equal terms. On Monday the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said that if the Colonial Secretary would only make a statement of that kind the right hon. Gentleman would certainly satisfy him. Having seen some of the battles involving the hon. Member for Dudley, I am glad to learn that at last he is satisfied. The university is, of course, one of the practical benefits that will arise from federation itself. It is one of which we must all be very pleased.
The right hon. Member for Waltham-stow, West (Mr. Attlee), in his very excellent speech which interested us all, referred to his information that the chiefs were hardening against federation. That is not the view received by many of us on this side of the House, and I doubt whether it is correct to say that. Even so, any delay caused by some of the intentions of the Labour Party in this matter would only bring about further hardening of the views of the chiefs.
Reference was made by the same right hon. Gentleman and by the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) to the desire to break down certain elements of the colour bar. I agree with them very fully, as did the hon. Member for Rugby when he made his point. All of us hope that steps can be taken more quickly in that direction.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Would the hon. Member support an Amendment to that effect?

Mr. Harris: It would depend entirely upon the Amendment. I can assure the hon. Member that that is my very sincere view, but I would like to see what the Amendment was.
The atmosphere of this debate has been encouraging to all of us, particularly at this late stage. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. J. Dugdale) did not quite enter into that spirit and atmosphere. Unfortunately, his words sometimes have repercussions in Central Africa and in Africa as a whole, and I hope sometimes he might reconsider more carefully the views he endeavours to put over so strongly. We must bear in mind that there are very good people in Africa who have done a great deal to help the Africans.

Mr. J. Dugdale: I never said there were not.

Mr. Harris: I confess that the right hon. Gentleman always conveys the impression to me that there is nobody who is good in Africa among the white settlers. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That was a fair comment on the views which I have always assumed to be given expression to by the right hon. Gentleman.
My interest is with East Africa rather than with Central Africa. Nevertheless, the issues arising in Central African Federation are closely connected with and will certainly have a strong bearing on the problems of East Africa. I recall the words of Sir Philip Mitchell, a former Governor of Kenya, who forecast that the countries of East Africa would ultimately unite in federation. He may be correct in that prophecy. All of us therefore hope very sincerely that the federation of Central Africa will prove to be the success that we wish. It has been said on many occasions that these three Territories cannot live in isolation; nothing could be more true than that statement. We have also heard of the economic benefits of federation.
What are we trying to achieve by Central African Federation? Those who wish for federation are trying to enlarge and strengthen that part of the Empire which, because of lack of co-ordination, is at the present moment a comparatively unimportant part of the world. They want to see in the Central African Ter-

ritories more population and the area become more highly developed, so that the immense natural resources in that part of our Empire can be realised for the benefit of all mankind.
Looking back into history, it is fair to say that as the British Empire has progressed it has adapted itself to the ever-altering circumstances, and where the Colonies, in particular, have started off in a small way it has only been by a process of joining these Territories together that co-operation has brought about the Dominions of which we are all so proud. It cannot be suggested that these changes will not continue. We are even now seeing the truth of that statement in the case of the coming federation of the British West Indies.
When we try to bring these Territories together considerable difficulties are bound to arise with people having such varied views. From what I have seen and learned I firmly believe that it is only with European guidance that the African, generally, will go forward. He needs European leadership and the benefit of the teaching of the skilled European immigrants.
This scheme envisages the creation of a contented, prosperous and progressive African community having, at the same time, the benefit of European leadership. Those who envisage self-government for the black Africans as only a future possibility are the greatest enemies of the happy, successful and prosperous future that may lie ahead. Those who have studied the African problems recognise that Europeans and Africans, as people, must be complementary in development if this community is going to prosper. We must go forward in partnership, but we must also recognise that European leadership plays a vital role, and will continue to do so for some years to come.
Many people have suggested that the scheme does not give sufficient safeguards to the Africans. In my own contacts with Europeans in Africa I have found that they have gone out of their way to help black Africans whenever they possibly can. This federal scheme is no exception to that general attitude. It is the opinion of our Government that the scheme provides the fullest safeguards for African interests, and having studied it carefully I feel that that is a correct statement of the position.
The main concern of the black Africans has always been for the security of tenure of their lands. In this respect I submit that the scheme provides them with exactly the same security as they enjoy at present. We are told that African opinion is against this scheme. I am one to those who, from personal contact with the Africans, feel that it is quite unrealistic to pretend that it is possible to consult large numbers of black Africans at present in order to get their considered opinion whether they are for or against the details of such a complicated scheme as federation.
Anyone who know the Territories intimately realise that it is quite unreal to suggest that many Africans have been able to come to conclusions about this scheme, based on considered detailed proposals. Views have been expressed by certain individual Africans—many of them rather short-sighted—who, in some cases, do not want to realise the long-term benefits that federation will bring. Furthermore, some of them visualise an Africa dominated by blacks. They feel that federation would not help them in their personal ambitions.
In the past the Africans have looked to our Government to advise them as to what is best for their future. As this House has decided that federation is right for the future prosperity of Central Africa, and I do not think there is any real dispute in principle between the two sides of the House on that point, I maintain that it is the responsibility of this House to put the decision into effect so that we may, in the long run, prove by deeds the benefits that the black Africans will receive through federation.
The African himself did not ask our people in the first place to go to Africa. Our pioneers went there, as the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) reminded us, and under the leadership of those pioneers the Territories have gradually been developed until the present day. In the same way as our forefathers were prepared to give that leadership our present House of Commons should be prepared to continue to give that leadership.
Do not let us deny the fact, that we have seen in Kenya, for instance, that when we try to get the views of certain Africans there are those who by threats and physical action are prepared to try

to influence the views that Africans themselves wish to express. Those who know Africa cannot deny that certain African leaders, particularly in the towns, and even under African chiefs, are often influenced in this matter. Threats have been used to induce the black African population not to accept federation.
I agree with what many of my hon. Friends have said, that it is not correct to say that all Africans would be opposed to federation if they knew the facts about it. If I had time I could give evidence of that. Certainly some of the African leaders who are trying to influence uninformed African opinion wish to reject federation, but there are others who are bound to say that all these three Territories cannot continue to live in isolation. I have studied the facts carefully, and I am quite convinced myself that there has not been any lack of endeavour on the part of the Government or the Europeans in the three Territories to try to explain federation and all that it means to the Africans.
It is indeed unfortunate that there may be a feeling in Central Africa that we in this House, the people of this country, are not really united behind the general proposals for Central African Federation. Anyone who has studied the matter knows that federation means nothing but partnership, a partnership of the Territories and of all the peoples. It is only in that way that Central Africa will be able to go ahead and play is part prosperously in the world. It is vital that we should not start federation by creating any dissention, that we should start by trying to assist wherever we possibly can, remembering what this means to all the peoples of all the races in Central Africa and, no doubt, eventually to East Africa and to the African continent as a whole.
I know how the lives of our people in the Empire are closely affected by arguments in this House. I have always sincerely hoped that colonial affairs could be kept above party politics. It would indeed be unfortunate if it were felt that there was any major difference of opinion between the two main parties in this House about Central African Federation. After all, it was originally the idea of the Socialist Party, and we have gone on to implement those proposals. Arguments on detail have followed, but these


arguments are over and Central African Federation is due to be implemented. Let us all combine in trying to make it a success beyond any doubt.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: As the Secretary of State indicated in his opening speech today this is the sixth debate that we have had upon this question during the last two years. I feel that I am under an obligation to the House to ask for its indulgence, because they are about to listen to the sixth speech I have made upon this subject.
May I begin by offering my welcome, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Attlee) did, to two announcements made by the Secretary of State at the beginning of this debate. First, although it is still subject to whatever the Federal Government and Federal Parliament may decide, some of the leaders in Central Africa have indicated that it is their desire and determination to make the university which is to be established in Central Africa a multiracial university. We welcome that whole-heartedly. Secondly, may I join him in commending the action of the company to which he referred which has written to its European employees through the European Mineworkers' Union to seek their agreement to a round table conference in order to settle this problem of the industrial colour bar in the Copper Belt.
As hon. Gentlemen well know, I used whatever influence I had with my own trade union, the National Union of Mine-workers, to invite to this country representatives of both the European and the African Mineworkers' Union so that we might be able to begin to bring about a better understanding between two trade unions representing miners, working in the same mines, but one having an agreement which provides a barrier to the advancement of the other. I hope that the invitation which has been sent out will be accepted by the European Mine-workers' Union and that a conference will follow, and that out of this there will come an agreement between the miners, irrespective of their colour, to establish a new solidarity and a new understanding.
I do not propose to deploy the arguments that have been deployed before,

but I would reaffirm what has been my view from the very beginning—that the closer association of these three Territories in a political federation could have two very great advantages. First of all, when we think of economic development in these Territories we must realise that economic development means not only the provision of new capital and the provision of new material resources, because economic development does not take place in a vacuum. It depends, in the last analysis, upon the men who use the machines, who hew the coal and extract the copper.
Let all of us remember that there is no economic development possible for these Territories without African labour and African help. Indeed—and the right hon. Gentleman knows it is true—the Copper Belt would stop tomorrow if the African stopped working. We have to realise, therefore, that economic development, if it is to succeed, as we hope it will, depends upon the mood and attitude of the Africans towards it as much as anything else. If we had a sullen, resentful African population, economic development would be retarded.
Secondly, the political advantage of linking these two countries together, so it was urged upon me and I see the force of it, has its implications as well in that it is desirable and necessary to provide in Central Africa a territory which would look to this country for its inspiration and its leadership in its political development; in other words, a barrier to what is happening further south. There can only be such a barrier if the racial policy pursued in those territories stands out in sharp and complete contrast to the racial policy being pursued further south. For this reason we began the discussion of the problem and consideration of the proposals and, as the Secretary of State has said, we have discussed them on six occasions.
I do not propose this evening to discuss the Bill in detail. I want to say a word about our further consideration of it. It is a short Bill, but there is a lot in it. It is an enabling Bill. When it has received the Royal Assent there will be only one further stage in this House and that will be consideration of the Order in Council embodying the constitution of the new Federation. When the affirmative Resolution comes before both Houses for approval or disapproval, all we can then


do is to debate it and vote for or against it. Today's debate provides us with one opportunity of considering some of the details of the Bill, which are of immense importance, upon the Second Reading, on which we shall divide tonight.
I hope that, in consultation with the Leader of the House, the Secretary of State will arrange for us to have ample opportunity to discuss the Bill in Committee. I hope that suggestion will commend itself to both sides of the House. It seems to me the Bill is eminently of the kind which can best be considered in a Standing Committee, for there are so many details and they are of such enormous importance. There are many changes of all kinds which we have to make in existing legislation and ordinances and we owe it to ourselves and to the people of Africa to study in very great detail the Bill and its implications and the changes which it enables Parliament to make.

Mr. Lyttelton: Might I be sure about this before I discuss it with my right hon. Friend? I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should suggest that on a Measure which, on his own admission, covers such a wide field we should limit the number of hon. Members who can address themselves to the details. However, I will put his suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Griffiths: I have made the recommendation that the Bill should go to a Standing Committee because we have seen just recently what can happen to a Bill which is committed to a Committee of the whole House. Drawing on our recent experience, I felt that that was advisable. I am offering my own suggestion that it is desirable that the Bill should be referred to a Standing Committee, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to discuss the matter with the Leader of the House.
There are two major matters which we have to decide tonight. One is whether we approve or disapprove the scheme embodied in the White Paper. If we vote for the Second Reading we approve the scheme as it stands in the White Paper. The second matter that we have to decide is whether we approve or disapprove the action of the Government in proceeding with the proposal at this stage notwithstanding the opposition to the

scheme in Central Africa. It is to these two matters that I wish to devote myself.
I would begin consideration of this scheme by a few words about policy in multi-racial communities. I am sure that the Secretary of State and anyone else who has held the high office which he holds now, looking over the whole field of the British Commonwealth and Empire, would agree that this problem of the future of the multi-racial communities is the most difficult, most complex, and, at the same time, the most important that faces us anywhere. I believe we ought to get clear what is the policy we are to pursue in these multi-racial communities, because we generally find that in these communities there is an indigenous population in varying stages of development, but all of them at a lower stage of development than the immigrant population who have settled there.
The major problem that concerns us is the relationship between whites and blacks in Africa. We get it in various forms and various colours in other parts. We have it in Kenya, in Tanganyika, and in Central Africa. The British Commonwealth now offers the last chance for a decent settlement of one of the world's most urgent problems. In Africa, there is only this chance; elsewhere, I believe that the chance has been lost.
When we have two peoples at different levels of development it is inevitable that in the transition stage the partnership between them should be that of a junior and a senior partner. For obvious reasons, the senior partner is the white partner and the junior partner is the black partner. In those circumstances, what are our obligations and our duties? The essence of colonial government is that we have special responsibility towards the weaker partner. We must recognise the contribution the other makes, but unless we recognise that we have such a special responsibility to the weaker partner and that we ought not to surrender it to anybody else, then we are fundamentally giving up the central responsibility of a Colonial Power.
Secondly, we must insure that the weaker partner gets the fullest opportunity of development, economically, socially, and politically. During this transition period, when there is a stronger


and a weaker partner, it is essential that ultimate authority must rest with Her Majesty's Government in this country until we have established a position in which equality between the races has been placed on a sound footing. That is the test to which we have to apply to every colonial Constitution, and it is one that we must apply here.
Here is my first reason why I am joining my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—whose opening speech this afternoon we on this side of the House greatly welcome, and I am particularly grateful that he intervened in this debate and gave us the benefit of his ripe wisdom and experience—in saying that we cannot vote for the Second Reading. I believe that the scheme now before us has been so changed that the safeguards are weakened not only in Central Africa, but the safeguards to be given to Her Majesty's Government have been weakened as well.
Let us see what has happened. I will go over them shortly, and we can discuss them in detail again. Originally, it was proposed that there should be in the Executive a Minister responsible to the Secretary of State. I should like to say in a few words why it was important that there should be a Minister who would be held responsible within the Cabinet for the safeguarding of African interests, and who would be answerable to the Secretary of State.
I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why I believe that concentrating upon personal responsibility to a Minister is of great importance in the context of the Africa of today. It is because paper safeguards in Africa are debased currency. Who trusts them in Africa any longer? Does anybody here trust them now, having regard to the way in which even entrenched Clauses have been removed? Therefore, I believed it was essential that there should be a personal responsibility to the Secretary of State. A change was made and the Minister disappeared. That was the first change.
The second change that was made was in the authority and powers of the African Affairs Board by the substitution of one word for another. I remember that when in a previous debate I emphasised that the change from "detrimental" to

"differential" was important, I was told that I was pedantic. I want to give one example of what may happen in the future and to make an appeal to the Government.
One of the first great and important tasks of the Federal Parliament will be to discuss, and eventually to adopt, a Federal electoral law for the inhabitants of this new Federation. Suppose the Federal Parliament decides to lay down an income test for the franchise, and suppose it says that no one can have the franchise unless he or she has an income of £250 per annum? They will lay that down for everyone. It will say that a European must have £250 income per annum; it will say that an African must have £250 income per annum. It will not be differential between Europeans and Africans, but who can deny that it will be detrimental to Africans because of their economic conditions? In my view, therefore, these two changes have weakened the safeguards and weakened the hold of Her Majesty's Government, because now there is no person whom Ministers can hold responsible for seeing that the safeguards are adequately carried out, not only in the letter but in the spirit as well.
There is a new provision which I hope we shall have an opportunity of discussing later in greater detail. That is the provision made on the future amendment of the Constitution. At this stage it is inevitable—I accept it—that there should be a stronger partner and a weaker partner and that there should be disparity between the legislative councils and the executive councils. But that disparity should get smaller and smaller and they should reach out towards equality. It is important that the Government and Parliament of this country should have the authority to ensure that the political advancement of the African people is permitted to develop progressively.
Now I come to the review. It is true that the Constitution provides that within no fewer than seven and no more than nine years after the date it comes into operation there shall be a review. There will be a conference of the Governments, of Her Majesty's Government, of the Federal Government, and of the other Governments in Central Africa. If they can agree upon changes in the Federal Constitution, including changes in its


racial composition, very well. Those changes can be put into operation because they are agreed.
Let us assume, however, that there is a dispute between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments in Central Africa. Let us assume that we think that African representation ought to be not only increased, but proportionately increased to European representation. Suppose that is not accepted in Central Africa. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind that we are giving a Second Reading to the policy of the White Paper this evening. Once we agree to this and it becomes the constitution in operation, when the review takes place in seven, eight, or nine years' time any change in the racial composition of the Federal Legislature will be conditional on the existing Federal Parliament having a two-thirds majority.
I say, therefore, that we are here surrendering, except by agreement with the others, our authority and our right and in my view our duty is to ensure that there is a progressive political development of the African people. For those reasons the changes, which, I think, are of very great importance, so weaken the safeguards and so impair the authority of Her Majesty's Government to keep under review and under their authority this future Federal Government that I could not agree to the Bill being given a Second Reading.
I come to another matter, and the Secretary of State was right in saying that it is the major question. Are we to go on with the scheme in the face of African opposition? I wish to make my position clear on this point. When I made the first statement in November, 1950, and again when I made the second statement in June, 1951, I said that we would consult African opinion and, having consulted it, we would take it fully into account.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) dealt with one aspect of this matter this evening. The words which I used, I used on advice. This is not the first time they have been used and I expect it is not the last time they will be used. We have said that on these matters that we shall consult African opinion, that we shall take it fully into account. What is important about this stage is that so far

as I know this is the first time that the meaning we attach to those words has been put to the test. I beg hon. Members to realise what they mean. None of us has said that in any of these matters any change of this kind is conditional on the consent of everyone, but we used this phrase. My right hon. Friend dealt with one aspect. Let us remember that this is exactly the phrase we used about the Protectorates in the South, that when we are asked to transfer them to another authority we shall consult the opinion of the Africans and take their opinion fully into account.
African opinion has been consulted. We know what it is. There can be no dispute about that now. I regret very much that the opportunity for further testing it was rejected on Monday, when we put forward our proposals. They were put forward quite sincerely. It was a reply to the Petition that they should be heard. This House should have said, "We will listen to them, hear them, and sift their evidence. We will test their opinion; we will take it into account." If African opinion is changing there is all the more reason why our Motion should have been accepted on Monday, because that would have been revealed.
I consulted that opinion, and took it into account. There was then universal opposition; there is still. I beg the House to realise what we are sending out as a message to Africa and elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) quoted an article in a South African newspaper indicating that one of their leading men had said that if this is what we mean by consulting and taking into account native opinion, this is the interpretation that they would expect us to put upon the phrase sometime when they ask for the transfer of the Protectorates. I pledged myself. I know that hon. Members opposite think that I was wrong and made a mistake. They are entitled to think that. But I said to the House that I would take fully into account and, taking fully into account, I have come to the conclusion that I could not vote for the Second Reading of this Bill.
Someone said the other day that the great continent of Africa is now the only uncommitted continent in the world.


Spreading through Africa and everywhere is the growth of what, for lack of a better name, we call nationalism—the revolt against a dependent status, reaching out towards national consciousness, conscious that they are Africans. They are still there. They have still got their tribal loyalties, as we have in this country; but believe me, no one can go to Africa without being conscious that there is emerging and growing rapidly a new dynamic force, a consciousness that they are not only Ibos, Yorubas and Kikuyu, but Africans. They are singing of their Motherland. This nationalism is developing. Look at the history of this kingdom; look at the history of Europe and of the world. Let us learn the lesson of history.
There are two attitudes that we can take. We can seek to thwart this nationalism and drive it back. I commend hon. Members to read the articles in "The Times" yesterday and today. Let me quote from memory one sentence which said that at present in Africa, where there are white communities and black peoples, the white people hold the keys to power. In the end, it says, if there is a conflict the Africans will win. Who wants a conflict? Who wants the Africans to win or the white people to win? We have a very great chance indeed—the last chance—of saying that we can build a multi-racial democracy based on racial unity and racial equality.
I wish that I could vote for this scheme, but I cannot. I have given the reasons why. If, in spite of everything, the scheme goes through in its present form, I can only hope that in Central Africa there will be found among white people and black people men, and women, too, who will come together and realise that if they allow the situation to develop into a conflict for racial supremacy they will all lose; Africa will lose. For reasons that I have already indicated, I shall ask my hon. Friends to vote against the Second Reading. Having said that, let me add that if the Bill goes through this will be a challenge to all the people in Africa. I hope that they will be equal to the challenge.

9.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Foster): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has referred to a chance to create a multiracial society. We believe that federation will provide that chance; and I propose in the few minutes at my disposal to give the House some reasons why we believe that federation will provide this great chance of creating a multi-racial society.
The two outstanding events in this debate have been the announcements by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies about the university and about the action to be taken with regard to the colour bar in the Copper Belt in Northern Rhodesia. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have united in wishing well to both these movements and commending both actions. Another outstanding event was the hope expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly, and the pledge given by him and by the Leader of the Opposition, that if this scheme goes through everyone will work to make it a success. It is in the best traditions of our Parliamentary democracy, that in the case of a big issue such as this, which affects the lives of millions of people overseas, we shall seek to make it a success once the scheme has been approved.
The Leader of the Opposition opposed this Bill and asked his hon. Friends to vote against it on the ground that he was anxious that the introduction of this scheme should be delayed. One of his points was that the safeguards for the Africans had been whittled down. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly also spoke in that way. Let me first deal with what is, so to speak, the negative aspect of this criticism. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly said there were three aspects of the safeguards which, in his view, had been weakened; that Clauses have been introduced which were positively harmful from that point of view.
The first was the "cuckoo Minister.' The argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that he wanted a Minister in the Federation Cabinet responsible for African affairs and responsible to the Secretary of State. I will not set out all the arguments in detail, because we have.


avoided that in this debate, but I would remind the House that the existence of this "cuckoo Minister" has been described by my right hon. Friend as a complete constitutional travesty and abnormality. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), who has often been quoted in this connection, said it was quite unworkable.

Mr. Dugdale: Mr. Dugdale indicated assent.

Mr. Foster: I see the right hon. Gentleman nods his head. The quotation is probably in the minds of all of us. The view of Her Majesty's Government on the abolition of the "cuckoo Minister" is that it is an improvement in the safeguards for the Africans. Far from agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman that it weakens the safeguards, in our view it increases them, because it means that the Federation Cabinet will work in a more constitutional way and will not have this extraneous Minister, who is not supposed to resign or change if the political complex changes, and whose function would be both anomalous and ineffective.
The second point taken by the right hon. Gentleman was the old debate on the word "differentiating." I hope that tonight I shall be allowed to develop this argument. In the four speeches I have made previously I have never been allowed to get out more than 10 consecutive words on the subject—[Interruption.] I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and especially to the hon. Member for Welling-borough (Mr. Lindgren) who has been responsible for interrupting me and for putting me off my stride. Perhaps I am easily put off my stride and that is why he does it. I should like to be allowed to develop this argument for the first time but in the fifth speech I am making on federation.
The right hon. Member for Llanelly argued that by altering the word "detrimental "to" differentiating" we have weakened the safeguard, and he gave an instance of something which would be detrimental without being differentiating. I think I have stated his argument fairly. I humbly believe this point to be misconceived because, under the scheme, a differentiating Measure is defined as a Measure which is disadvantageous to Africans or will be disadvantageous in its practical effect. I assume that the House

will be with me when I say that the word "disadvantageous "and the word" detrimental" are equal and synonymous; I think that must be so.
What the present scheme does—and we think it is a drafting improvement —is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman wants; but it does it more effectively in law. It says that where there is a Measure which is differentiating and which fulfils the conditions of the example which the right hon. Gentleman gave— namely, it applies equally to Africans and to Europeans—but, owing to conditions outside, in its practical effect it is detrimental or disadvantageous—the word used in the scheme is "disadvantageous" —then the African Affairs Board enter on their functions.

Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman mind reading the definition? If he is relying upon the words of the definition it is important to have them.

Mr. Foster: I had hoped that the House would follow what I have said. It always sounds rather dull in legalese, It says:
In this paragraph and in the subsequent provisions of this Chapter the expression 'differentiating measure' means a Bill or instrument by which Africans are subjected or made liable to any conditions, restrictions or disabilities disadvantageous to them to which Europeans are not also subjected or made liable, or a Bill or instrument which will in its practical application have such an effect.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: What about the case of the property qualification? That would apply to both Europeans and Africans in its application but, nevertheless, it would mean the exclusion of Africans and not of Europeans in precisely the same way as we have seen in Southern Rhodesia in recent years.

Mr. Foster: It is quite clear that the qualifying words
which will in its practical application have such an effect
do apply to the substance of such a Bill. The property qualification affects both Europeans and Africans but it would have "disabilities disadvantageous" to the Africans. In other words, the provision means exactly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman sought in his example; if we have a property qualifi-


cation of £x, it applies equally to Africans and Europeans, but if there are conditons—namely, that most Africans do not have as much money as Europeans—which make it disadvantageous to Africans, then this proposal comes into effect.
There is nothing in this point. If I am right, hon. Members opposite should agree that there is nothing in it. If I am wrong in what I say, then I will agree that there is something in their point; but I hope that for the first time they understand what I have been trying to say. In my submission it is quite clear from the legal language that the practical effect does not mean a qualification of £200. It means that where the practical effect of the substance of the Bill is to impose disadvantages on the Africans, which on the face of it would not exist, this provision is applied. That is my submission, and I think that perhaps I have shaken the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. James Carmichael: The hon. and learned Gentleman has shaken us all.

Mr. Foster: Those were the first two points which the right hon. Gentleman made, when he said that we had introduced alterations or new Clauses which were not safeguards for the Africans.
The third point to which he alluded was the review, and his argument there was that the review Clause, which comes at the end of the draft Federal Scheme, was worded in such a way that, unless all four Governments agreed, the political advancement of the Africans would not be possible. We do not change from that position; and we would regard it as quite improper and not in accordance with the whole scheme, idea and principle of federation, if it was provided that, if the Governments disagreed, the United Kingdom could impose upon those Governments certain provisions which would tend to give either Africans or Europeans certain advantages or restrictions which were not agreed to by the other Governments.
On that we are entirely at issue with the right hon. Gentleman, but I want the House to understand what the issue is. The right hon. Gentleman is saying that,

if it came about at the review after seven or nine years that there was a difference between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and any one or all of these Governments, the United Kingdom should be entitled to impose their own view on these other three Governments, presumably by Act of Parliament.

Mr. J. Griffiths: The hon. and learned Gentleman is referring to consultation between Governments, but the Constitution provides that, even if the four Governments agree it would not come into being unless a two-thirds majority of the Federal Parliament, as set up under this scheme, is obtained.

Mr. Foster: That is not so. As I see it, the review Clause is for the four Governments to decide on what alterations in the Constitution there should be. The four Governments are, so to speak, looking at the Constitution from outside, and trying to decide between themselves by agreement which of the clauses of the Constitution should be altered or not, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is not correct in saying that the review Clause is itself subject to a two-thirds majority in the Legislature
It may be that the expression "with the consent of the Governments" may be subject to whatever rules they have made. I agree on that, but, from the point of view of the review Clause, all these four Governments are outside the Constitution, are looking at it from the outside and are deciding whether by agreement they can reach this concord as to the alterations in the provisions of the Constitution. [Interruption.] I find it difficult to speak when the hon. and learned Gentleman keeps muttering.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Of course, the Central African Government will have a majority in the Central African Federation. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman contemplate that, by Act of Parliament in this country, we should carry out what the four Governments had agreed without a two-thirds majority in the Central African Federation? That is the first point. The second point, which is the practical point, is that, of course, the Central African Federation Government will not agree without having such a majority in the Central African Federation.

Mr. Foster: I do not think the last point is true. There is no evidence to indicate that. On the first point, I agree that, if all the four Governments agreed, something involving a necessary United Kingdom Act will eventuate. [Interruption.] I do hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not interrupt too much. I have listened to the debate for seven hours today, and nobody has been interrupted until this moment. It is very difficult to deal with interruptions all round, and I seem to be the unfortunate victim every time I get up on this well-worn subject.
Now for the positive side. I said that I would deal first with the negative aspect of the right hon. Gentleman's objections to our safeguards, when he was saying that what we were doing was weakening rather than strengthening them—I have dealt, firstly, with the question of the "cuckoo Minister" and, secondly with the question of differentiation. Thirdly, the safeguards have also been strengthened, by the freezing of the Legislative List, to which my right hon. Friend alluded in such detail in the last debate but one. and, fourthly, by the Clause relating to lands.
It may not be within the recollection of the House that whilst there was already a very strong safeguard about lands in the scheme as originally proposed in the conference in April, 1952, as a result of the last conference of January, 1953, the new scheme has yet a further Clause. It was not really legally necessary, but it was designed to give confidence to the Africans by providing that the federal subjects should not be used to acquire land indiscriminately on the pretext that these federal subjects, for instance, required the whole land of the Colony in order to satisfy the item about immigration. Therefore, on the first part of the case made by the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. Friend about safeguards, we argue that those safeguards have been strengthened for the reasons which I have just given.
The second main objection made by the two right hon. Gentlemen was the matter of African opposition. There again we will not set out the arguments in detail. The Leader of the Opposition stated that the African was anxious to give his views and he regretted the fact that the African had not been allowed to produce his

opposition to the scheme. The right hon. Gentleman quite fairly added that he understood the arguments about the opportunities which had been given to the African at the conferences and so on.
Summarising what was said in the debate last Monday, the view of Her Majesty's Government is that not only have the Africans been given a full opportunity but that if we had carried the Motion to which the right hon. Gentleman for Llanelly alluded, it would only have resulted in a number of chiefs who would have nothing to do with federation coming before a Select Committee and saying, "We will not discuss federation. We will have nothing to do with it." That would be no opportunity of testing the views of Africans—views which have been tested in other ways and of which evidence has been brought before this House.
We say that delay in federation would be the negation of the very things of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly spoke. We believe that federation is the opportunity for Africans and that if we have a delay it would play into the hands of extremists, both black and white. The extremists which the Leader of the Opposition mentioned in his article would increase in stature. We believe that both sides would feel that they had scored a victory and that the bad aspects of African nationalism would be increased. I pray in aid the right hon. Gentleman's article in which he described those in favour of federation as liberal persons who looked ahead.
It seems to us that the two very important announcements made by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary are already the first fruits of federation. The opportunity of creating a multi-racial university is already the result of the fact that federation is on its way. There is the same thing with the European mine-workers.
Let us look at the other opportunities of political advancement in federation. In Southern Rhodesia, for the first time, two Africans will become Members of the Parliament, of the Central Legislature. They have not had members so far, and that is a great step forward. In the Northern Territories, the existence of a Common Roll will provide an opportunity for Africans to advance. I


believe that the Common Roll is a better solution in the long run than the communal solution for Africans in the Legislative Assembly. It may take some time, and the timing of it is a matter of opinion, but I believe the future is with the Common Roll, which is the great idea of Sir Godfrey Huggins.
I was very glad that both the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) paid tributes to the liberal ideas of Sir Godfrey Huggins, and both right hon. Gentlemen drew attention to the article in "The Times" in support of the various points which they brought forward. I would like the House to notice that the writer of that article came down on the side of federation after pointing out the dangers and the responsibilities which we all feel, and the risks which we all agree are being taken. After, if not in the middle of the passage which was quoted by the Leader of the Opposition, the writer said:
The importance of Central African Federation is that it gives them one more chance to do this.
He was referring to whether African politicians would learn proper politics and could retain the hold over their supporters to do what was necessary even if it was unpopular. That was one part of the argument on which the writer was addressing his plea, and the other was whether the European settlers could realise that, to a large extent, their refusal to recognise realities had made the success of a movement like Mau Mau, and whether they would hence-force listen to their more moderate leaders. Both sides were appealed to by the writer. In the end he came down for federation, on the ground that it would provide more opportunity for advancement.
The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the connection between political and economic advancement. I put it in a slightly different way. I say that the conditions for political advancement are in the Federal Scheme, but there will not be any political advancement unless there is economic advancement. By creating conditions in which a larger amount of capital will be drawn into the area and so provide the lifeblood to improve the economic conditions, the scheme provides

means by which the inhabitants of the Territory will be able to advance economically, Europeans and Africans alike. Therefore, given these conditions of economic and political advancement together, federation holds out the best hope for the advancement which both sides of the House want.
Perhaps I may now turn aside to deal with particular points raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson). The hon. Lady asked the position about education. She will find, if she looks at the distribution of income, that the small sum mentioned in regard to federal education is small because it is nominal and that the education to which she referred is a territorial subject. Perhaps we can go into that further at another time. I suggest that the hon. Lady looks at the question on those lines to see if I am right or wrong.
I am sorry I was absent from the House when the hon. Member for Rugby asked his question. The subject of trade unions, when conciliation as regards the relationship of the Federal employee to the Federal Government is involved, is an exclusive matter for the Federal Legislature.
Going back to the main thread of my argument, we believe that federation provides an opportunity for a great multiracial partnership. On Monday I ended the debate by quoting some words of Sir Godfrey Huggins. I do not think I can do any better now than to quote some different words of his which show that liberal-mindedness—to which right hon. and hon. Members opposite have alluded —is one of his outstanding characteristics. On the eve of the referendum poll he said:
Let us show the world that we can create a great multi-racial state where the interest of all is to see that the civilised way of life is a common standard, and where opportunity to advance in the economic and political sphere becomes a common heritage to those who can demonstrate their fitness for such advance, and so be an outstanding example of what our British genius can do.
The other quotation is in relation to the African Affairs Board. He said:
Some Africans consider that the African Affairs Board and the other safeguards are valueless in the light of what has happened in other places. But do not forget that the


safeguards in the Federal Constitution can only be changed with the consent of all parties including the United Kingdom Government.
In conclusion, I very much regret that the right hon. Member for Llanelly adduced the argument that if we bring in federation it will provide an argument for the Union Government to found a claim upon the Territories. As I hope hon. Members will read in HANSARD, that argument was answered quite con-

clusively and devastatingly by the right hon. Member for Smethwick. I commend this Bill to the House for the reason that it is a great constitutional experiment—an experiment of great imaginativeness and a great tribute to the political good sense of the British people.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 247: Noes, 221.

Division No 169.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Fell, A.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Finlay, Graeme
McCallum, Major D.


Alport, C. J. M.
Fisher, Nigel
MeCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Arbuthnot, John
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
McKibbin, A. J.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Foster, John
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Fraser, Sir lan (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Maclean, Fitzroy


Baker, P. A. D.
Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Baldock, L.-Cmdr. J. M.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Baldwin, A. E.
Garner-Evans, E. R.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Banks, Col. C.
Godber, J. B.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Barber, Anthony
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Baxter, A. B.
Gough, C. F. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Gower, H. R.
Markham, Major S. F.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maude, Angus


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maydon, Lt,-Comdr. S. L. C.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harden, J. R. E.
Mellor, Sir John


Birch, Nigel
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Molson, A. H. E.


Black, C. W.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Bossom, A. C.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Nicholls, Harmar


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Hay, John
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Heald, Sir Lionel
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Heath, Edward
Noble, Cmdr, A.H.P.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bullard, D. G.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Oakshott, H. D.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Odey, G. W.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Campbell, Sir David
Horobin, I. M.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Carr, Robert
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)


Channon, H.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Osborne, C.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Partridge, E.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Clyde, Rt. Hon. J. L.
Hulchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cole, Norman
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Colegate, W. A.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Pilkinston, Capt. R. A.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Keeling, Sir Edward
Pitman, I. J.


Cranborne, Viscount




Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Kerr, H.W.
Powell, J. Enoch


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Crouch, R. F.
Lambton, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Leather, E. H. C.
Redmayne, M.


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Davidson, Viscountess
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Deedes, W. F.
Lindsay, Martin
Renton, D. L. M.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Linstead, H. N.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Robertson, Sir David


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Donner, P. W.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Robson-Brown, W.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Drayson, G. B.
Low, A. R. W.
Roper, Sir Harold


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Russell, R. S.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.




Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. Marylebone)


Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Studholme, H. G.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Scott, R. Donald
Summers, G. S.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Shepherd, William
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Watkinson, H. A.


Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Teeling, W.
Wellwood, W.


Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Snadden, W. McN.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Soames, Capt. C.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Spearman, A. C. M.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Speir, R. M.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)
Wills, G.


Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Thornton Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Touche, Sir Gordon
Wood, Hon. R.


Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Turton, R. H.
York, C.


Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Vane, W. M. F.



Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Storey, S.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Mr. Drewe nd Mr. Kaberry.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Glanville, James
Mellish, R. J.


Adams, Richard
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Messer, F.


Albu, A. H.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mikardo, Ian


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Grey, C. F.
Mitchison, G. R.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Monslow, W.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J mes (Llanelly)
Moody, A. S.


Baird, J.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Balfour, A.
Hale, Leslie
Morley, R.


Bence, C. R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Benson, G.
Hamilton, W. W.
Mort, D, L.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hargreaves, A.
Moyle, A.


Bing, G. H. C.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Murray, J. D.


Blackburn, F.
Hastings, S.
Nally, W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hayman, F. H.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Boardman, H.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Bowen, E. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
O'Brien, T.


Bowles, F. G.
Holman, P.
Orbach, M.


Brockway, A. F.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Oswald, T.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Houghton, Douglas
Padley, W. E.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hoy, J. H.
Paget, R. T.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hubbard, T. F.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Burke, W. A.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pannell, Charles


Carmichael, J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pargiter, G. A.


Champion, A. J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Parker, J.


Clunie, J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paton, J.


Collick, P. H.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Plummer Sir Leslie


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Popplewell, E.


Cove, W. G.
Janner, B.
Porter, G.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Crosland, C. A. R.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Proctor, W. T.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pryde, D. J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Rankin, John


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Rhodes, H.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Richards, R.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, C.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Deer, G.
King, Dr. H. M.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Delargy, H. J.
Kinley, J.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dodds, N. N.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Donnelly, D. L.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lewis, Arthur
Short, E. W.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lindgren, G. S.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Edelman, M.
McGhee, H. G.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
McGovern, J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McInnes, J.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Skeffington, A. M.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W)
McLeavy, F.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Fernyhough, E.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Fienburgh, W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Sorensen, R. W.


Finch, H. J.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sparks, J. A.


Foot, M. M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfieid, E.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Forman, J. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Manuel, A. C.
Swingler, S. T.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Sylvester, G. O.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mason, Roy
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Gibson, C. W.
Mayhew, C. P.
Taylor, Rt. Hon Robert (Morpeth)







Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Wells, William (Walsall)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
West, D. G.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Thorneycrofl, Harry (Clayton)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Thornton, E.
Wheeldon, W. E.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Timmons, J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Turner-Samuels, M.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Wyatt, W. L.


Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Viant, S. P.
Wigg, George



Wallace, H. W.
Wilkins, W. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Watkins, T. E.
Williams, David (Neath)
M. Pearson and


Weitzman, D.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Mr. Arthur Allen.


Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Studholme.]

Committee upon Monday next.

RHODESIA AND NYASALAND FEDERATION [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees)— [Queen's Recommendation signified].

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the Federation of Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, or out of the Consolidated Fund, of any increase in sums payable thereout under any other enactment attributable to an Order in Council under the said Act or to any instrument made under that Order.—[Mr. Lyttelton.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION BILL

Order read for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee).
Bill re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 1, page 2, lines 17, 19 and 21; Clause 6, page 8, line 36; Clause 7, page 11, lines 6, 13, 17, 21, 23 and 25; Clause 10, page 14, line 43; Clause 15, page 21, lines 27, 38 and 42, and page 22, lines 1, 2 and 3; Schedule 3, page 35, line 46; and the New Clause (Special provision as to certain female nurses, &amp;c.) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Harold Macmillan.—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(REGULATIONS AS TO SUPERANNUATION BENEFITS.)

10.11 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, to leave out "or in respect of."
Perhaps it would be convenient also to take the two following Amendments as they are all part of the same Amendment. I apologise to the House for the necessity to recommit the Bill in connection with these Amendments, but it is for the technical reason that they might throw a charge on public funds and, therefore, they have to be dealt with in Committee. They are part of a series of Amendments to carry out undertakings which I gave in the Standing Committee to try to deal with certain points.
The Amendments are put down in fulfilment of a promise I made in Committee to amend the Clause for the purpose of empowering the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland, by regulations made under the Clause, to provide that a local authority shall be put into a position to grant either a pension or a lump sum, whichever might appear to it to be the more beneficial, to the widow oi a deceased contributory employee of the class mentioned in the Amendment or to any other dependant. We thought that it would be valuable to give this right to the authority and that it would be beneficial to those concerned. In conformity with what I then said in Standing Committee, we have put down these Amendments to cover the point.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have nothing to add except to convey to the Minister, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, our gratitude for his having incorporated this provision in the Bill. It fulfils the promise that he made, and we accept it wholeheartedly.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 19, leave out "or die."

In page 2, line 21, at end, insert:
(d) benefits by way of annual amounts or a lump sum payment in respect of any contributory employee who dies as a result of injuries sustained or disease contracted as aforesaid.—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(RE-EMPLOYMFNT OF CHRTAIN PENSIONERS.)

The Joint Under-Secretary of Stale for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith): I beg to move, in page 8, line 36, after "funds," to insert:
or under a local Act scheme.
Hon. Members who were on the Standing Committee will recollect that the object of the Clause is to encourage persons who have retired on pension to continue to work in the knowledge that if they enter the service of a local authority they will be able to reckon the service in respect of which they were pensioned in qualifying them to become superannuable in their new employment and thus earn a further pension. Subsection (1) of the Clause deals with those who are in receipt of pensions from public funds and subsection (3) with those in receipt of pensions from authorities who are administering the Act of 1937. It was the wish of the Committee also to include those who were under local Act authorities, and that is the purpose of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS AS TO SERVICE.)

10.15 p.m.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 11, line 6, to leave out "or some part."
This Amendment is a result of an undertaking which I gave in Standing Committee to look into the points raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Sir G. Hutchinson). Under Section 12 (6) of the 1937 Act the contributory employee, who started service in the employment of a local government officer, what is called indirect service, and had been not fewer

than three years in such service could, at the discretion of the local authority, on his becoming a regular employee in their service, have the right to reckon the whole or any part of his indirect service as the authority might determine would be suitable.
This determination had, under that Act, to be made within one year after becoming a contributory employee, and Clause 7 (3) of the Bill gives a second chance to the local authority to make a determination if no service at all was given on the first chance. The Amendment put down by my hon. and learned Friend, which we discussed in the Standing Committee, was to allow a further determination to be made where the local authority had already made a determination only allowing a part of the indirect service.
I was agreeable to that and so was the Committee, but I pointed out that I wanted to provide against this right of further appeal, so to speak, being used in any way except to the benefit of the contributor, whereas as the Amendment stood it might have been used to remove some benefit already given. In the words we have now provided we are achieving the purpose of giving this second chance and only allowing it to be used beneficially to the contributor and not to his disadvantage.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 11, line 13, after "date," insert:

(i) in a case where a determination has been made in pursuance of the said subsection (6) that part only of that service shall be so taken into account, determine that the whole or any additional part of that service shall be so taken into account; or
(ii) in any other case.

In line 17, leave out from "to," to "shall," in line 18, and insert "the said subsection (6)."—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]

Mr. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 11, line 21, after "managers," to insert
of a public elementary school maintained but not provided by a local education authority for elementary education under the Education Act, 1921, or of the managers.
This Amendment deals with a point which was raised in Standing Committee. It was a question as to whether the words that we have drawn covered all classes of teachers whom it was intended to cover, and this merely makes it clear that


it covers those supplementary teachers who served in what were then called non-provided schools under the 1921 Act as well as those who served in what are renamed voluntary schools under the Education Act, 1944. It, therefore, makes it clear beyond peradventure that both classes in both Acts are covered.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 11, line 23, after "becomes," to insert, "or has become."
This Amendment has a retrospective effect. Part of Clause 7 (4) says that persons who have already become contributory employees before its passing will get the benefit of back service as supplementary teachers as well as new entrants. It tidies the matter up a bit, and is hardly more than a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 11, line 23, at the end, to insert:
and that service is not treated as recognised or contributory service under the Teachers (Superannuation) Act, 1918 to 1946, and, but for the provisions of this subsection, would not be reckonable as service for the purposes of the principal English Act, then.
This Amendment seeks to prevent the back service of supplementary teachers from being counted twice. It is to make sure that a teacher does not come under two Measures but one, because there is a possibility of a person getting a pension under two Bills.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 11, line 25, at the end, to insert:
(5) If a person who is a contributory employee has, at any time before becoming such an employee, been appointed by and at the expense of a superintendent registrar or a registrar of births and deaths to be his deputy and has in that appointment devoted substantially the whole of his time to the duties of the officer to whom he is deputy, then—

(a) the period of that appointment; and
(b) if he ceased to hold that appointment in order to enter upon war service within the meaning of the Local Government Staffs (War Service) Act, 1939, or any service such as is mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2) of this section, the period of that service; and
(c) except in the case of such service as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of the said subsection (2). any period immediately following the termination of any such service during which that person, with the consent of the officer to whom he was deputy, continued in similar service,


shall be deemed for superannuation purposes to have been a period of service rendered to a local authority.

This Amendment covers the deputies of superintendent registrars and registrars of births and deaths appointed by the registrar and paid by them out of their fees. These are not registration officers within the meaning of the definition of Section 40 (1) 1937 Act, because they are not provided by, and at the expense of, the local authority. They are not, therefore, superannuate and it is not intended that they should be made so. Their service, however, as deputies is akin to the indirect service dealt with under another heading just now.
In the Standing Committee I undertook to look into the question of their position. This new subsection will cover them. It will allow these deputies to reckon their service as non-contributory service for superannuation purposes if they become, or have before the passing of the Bill become, contributory employees. It puts them on a par with other similar indirect services. It is a fair point which we ought to cover and this Amendment tries to do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.—(PERSONS ENTERING LOCAL AUTHORITY EMPLOYMENT FROM OTHER PENSIONABLE EMPLOYMENT.)

Commander Galbraith: I beg to move, in page 14, line 43, after "Minister," to insert:
or, in relation to Scotland, by the Secretary of State.
This Amendment is little more than a drafting Amendment to rectify an omission and to give the Secretary of State the power to approve schemes in the same way as the Minister can in England and Wales.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15.—(ALLOCATION OF PART OF SUPERANNUATION BENEFITS TO SPOUSE OR DEPENDANT.)

Mr. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 21, line 27, after "conditions," to insert:
as to proof of health and other matters.


This Amendment is really linked with the remaining Amendments to this Clause. With your permission, Sir Charles, we might take them together, because they must be read together and they operate together.
They are rather technical in character and they are designed to secure the position of the spouse or other dependant of a contributory employee who, in advance of retirement, decides to surrender part of his prospective pension in order to secure a pension for his dependant upon his own death. Those who were on the Standing Committee will know that this is a provision which is valuable and helpful to contributors and is much welcomed by them. However, since we went into 'it, it has raised a certain point of a purely technical character as to how a valuation is to be made of their rights.
Section 9 of both the English and Scottish Acts of 1937 enable a contributory employee on retirement to surrender up to one-third of the pension to provide a pension for the spouse after the death of the contributory employee. Clause 15 extends the scope of this provision in two ways. One as to the beneficiary, because it allows for dependants as well as the spouse to be made the subject of this arrangement; the other by allowing the surrender to be made in advance of retirement, provided that the right to retire on pension has accrued.
This makes it necessary for a valuation to be made of the pension to be paid to the spouse or dependant, and it has to be actuarially equivalent to the value of the part of the pension surrendered which the contributory employee receives on retirement or, in the case of the person who dies in service, the pension he would have received if he had retired immediately before his death. In accordance with existing practice it is intended that the tables to be applied for this purpose should be based on the normal expectation of life at the date of retirement or, in the case of death, the notional expectation.
The Clause therefore places on the Government actuary the duty of preparing the necessary tables. He has advised that, owing to the requirement as to the actuarial equivalence in the Clause as drafted, he could not give effect to this

intention in the case of an employee who surrenders part of his prospective pension in advance of retirement. The reason for this is that for the purposes of the tables the part of the pension to be surrendered is valued on this assumption: It is assumed that on the date on which it becomes payable or is deemed to become payable—on the date of retiring or immediately on death, whichever it may be—the employee is in a normal state of health. This may not correspond with the facts, particularly if the relevant date is immediately before his death. The beneficiary might therefore get a higher pension under the tables than the Clause as drafted permits and it is intended that the beneficiary should receive.
To overcome the difficulty and provide a legal foundation for the table, it is necessary to entitle the Government actuary to assume that the employee is in a good state of health at the time the pension is valued and this rather complicated transaction gives legal authority to the actuary to make a valuation based on the man—whatever may be the actual fact—having been in a normal state of health and, therefore, is beneficial 10 the contributor because it prevents any questions being raised of whether, should he had made the surrender just before his death, his expectation of life was normally shorter than would have been expected. That is assumed and no questions are asked, but he is given the benefit of the actuarial valuation based on the most beneficial valuation of his life.

Mr. Joseph T. Price: I am sure that the whole House would like to congratulate the Minister on weaving his way so skilfully through the troubled waters that he has had to negotiate. If I get the point aright, the Government actuary has advised the Minister that instead of having an election against the fund by reason of impaired life a man who is not in full health at the time of pension has that fact ignored. I am not sure that all professional actuaries would agree, but if the Minister has been advised on those lines we should not make heavy weather of it tonight.
The question which seems more germane to this matter than the fact of the contributor's state of health when he makes his election to take a joint annuity is what rate of interest is the Government actuary to assume in valuing pensions on


this basis according to this formula? From what I know of these technical matters, the rate of interest to be assumed in a valuation of this kind is of greater significance than the question of mortality or state of health. There has been a very marked change in the rate of interest. Can the Minister say whether it is to be 4 per cent., or 4½ per cent., because it makes a great difference in ascertaining the pension?

10.30 p.m.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The answer is that account will be taken of the appropriate rate of interest from time to time. It merely relieves the actuary of having to go through what would be a painful and sometimes an oppressive duty of asking whether a man, who perhaps a few months before his death made this apportionment, was likely to die or whether he could be assumed to have the normal expectation of life for a man of his age. It would be very difficult and rather oppressive to put upon the actuary the duty of making that kind of individual inquiry.
The normal expectation of life is assumed, and the actuary makes the calculation in the ordinary way; he does not go in for what I might call a health test of the condition of a man before he made this arrangement for his dependants. It would be rather distasteful if that kind of inquiry were made in the circumstances of the time, when the man had died and we had to ascertain whether, at the time he made the arrangement, it was likely that he would die soon or whether he could be assumed to have the normal expectation of life.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: Can the Minister say how there can possibly be a notional expectation of life at the time of death, or is that a silly question?

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Member has served many years in the Inland Revenue, and I should have thought that that was not beyond him.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 21, line 38, leave out from "which," to
in," in line 40, and insert:
he ceases to hold his employment.

In line 42, after "benefit," insert:
to which he would otherwise be entitled.

In page 22, line 1, leave out "or would have been."

In line 2, leave out "relevant."

In line 3, at the end, insert:
and, for the purposes of a surrender by virtue of paragraph (b) of this subsection, it shall be assumed—

(i) that there will be no change in the employee's state of health between the date on which he is allowed to make the surrender and the date on which he ceases to hold his employment; and
(ii) if he ceases to hold his employment by reason of his death, that he had retired from his employment immediately before he died." —[Mr. H. Macmillan.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(SPECIAL PROVISION AS TO CERTAIN FEMALE NURSES, ETC.)

(1) If any person who has been employed as a female nurse by any organisation not carried on for profit and not provided by a local or public authority—

(a) enters the employment of a local authority as a nurse from the employment of that organisation; or
(b) having so entered the employment of a local authority before the passing of this Act but since the commencement of the National Health Service Act, 1946, or, in Scotland, since the commencement of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947, is at the passing of this Act in the employment of a local authority as a nurse,

and her service in the employment of that and any other such organisation is not otherwise reckonable as service for the purposes of the principal Act, or, if the authority is a local Act authority, for the purposes of the local Act scheme, that service shall be deemed to be service rendered to a local authority for the purpose of determining whether the nurse is entitled to become a contributory employee or a local Act contributor or to receive a benefit under section eight of the principal Act or under the superannuation regulations or, as the case may be, under the local Act scheme, but for no other purpose.

(2) In this section the expression "nurse" includes a midwife and a health visitor.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In order to discharge their functions under the National Health Service Act, 1946, and the corresponding Act for Scotland, local health authorities may either employ nurses, midwives and health visitors themselves, or they may make arrangements with voluntary


organisations for the purpose of visiting persons in their own homes. In either of those cases superannuation is taken care of, but there are a number of voluntary bodies who are doing this type of work but who have no arrangement with local health authorities.
The employees of some of these voluntary bodies may from time to time transfer to local authority employment, and those transfers are not covered as the Bill is now drawn. The Royal College of Nursing have drawn the attention of the Government to this matter, and the Clause seeks to put the position right.
Under this new Clause a woman employed as I have mentioned may, when transferring to local government employment, take her service with a voluntary organisation into account for two purposes: first, to determine whether she is entitled to become a contributory employee—although, for example she may already be over 50 years of age, she could become a contributory employee by virtue of this Clause—and secondly, to receive any particular benefit which depends upon her having completed a number of years service.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Third Schedule.—(SUPERANNUATION OF JUSTICES' CLERKS AND THEIR STAFFS, ETC.)

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 35, line 46, at the end to add:
(2) If any person to whom subparagraph (1) of this paragraph applies left his employment by a justices' clerk in order to enter upon war service within the meaning of the Local Government Staffs (War Service) Act, 1939, or any service such as is mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2) of section seven of this Act, the period of that service and, except in the case of such service as is mentioned in the said paragraph (a), any period immediately following the termination thereof during which that person, with the consent of the justices' clerk whose employment he left, continued in similar service shall be deemed for superannuation purposes to have been a period of service rendered to a local authority.
The Third Schedule to the Bill deals with the question of superannuation of justices' clerks and their staff, and paragraph 11 of Part II of the Schedule gives the employee of the justice's clerk the right to reckon his service while he was

such an employee if he later becomes a contributory employee of a local authority. The service, while reckonable, is, of course, non-contributory service.
In Committee the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. J. Edwards) raised the question of the reckoning of a broken period of service to a justice's clerk when that broken period of service was caused by war service. I told the hon. Member that the question was being considered, and that it was intended to amend the Bill in due course. A decision has now been reached in this connection, and it is incorporated in this Amendment. The Amendment entitles such employees as I have mentioned to reckon such service, whether in World War I or World War II, or otherwise in National Service.

Mr. John Edwards: I desire to thank the hon. Gentleman for meeting the few points I put to him in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

Clause 15.—(ALLOCATION OF PART OF SUPERANNUATION BENEFITS TO SPOUSE OR DEPENDANT.)

Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 21, line 37, to leave out "at his option," and insert "if he so desires."
This is a drafting Amendment. I understand that there was some discussion about this during the Committee stage, and this Amendment is calculated to give wide pleasure.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not wish to delay the House, but it would have been interesting if the right hon. Gentleman could have explained to us, simply and briefly, what is the difference between "at his option" and "if he so desires." We have not had an explanation. I do not know whether it would be a long one, or whether the right hon. Gentleman could give it to us.

Amendment agreed to.

Third Schedule.—(SUPERANNUATION OF JUSTICES' CLERKS AND THEIR STAFFS, ETC.).

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, in page 34, line 35, to leave out "and."
This is a paving Amendment to the next one, and with your permission, Sir Charles, perhaps I might discuss the two together. They are little more than drafting Amendments.
Section 62 of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act, 1951, is superseded by the Bill. It deals with the pension rights of justices' clerks, collecting officers and their staffs, and in view of the fact that it is superseded it is better that it should be expressly repealed. That is what these Amendments do.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 34, line 38, at end, insert:
and section sixty-two of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act, 1951."—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

10.42 p.m.

Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I would thank the House and the Committee for the help they have given in getting this piece of legislation through all its stages. I cannot claim that it is a radical or revolutionary Measure, but it is a useful bit of work, which will, I know, give a great deal of pleasure in various ways to those who serve in local government. It has been widely commended, and full help was given by hon. Members in Committee to try to improve it and make it watertight. Without more ado I will bring this useful work to a conclusion, so far as this House is concerned, by asking that the Bill be read the Third time.

Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson: It would not be right for us to pass the Third Reading without expressing to my right hon. Friend the appreciation of all those whose interests are most concerned in this Bill at his action in finding time for the Bill in the present Session. They have waited for the Bill for a long time, and I am sure I express their views in saying that they are very grateful to my right hon. Friend.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Moyle: I echo the sentiments that have just been expressed. While some disappointment is felt by hon. Members on this side of the House, it would be

churlish not to extend to the Minister our thanks for his right conception of duty in undertaking to pilot the Bill through the House as well as through its Committee stages. The fact that he suffered a temporary indisposition did not in any way prevent his carrying out his duty as Minister in connection with the Bill. We hope that he will soon be restored to his normal health.
Amendments have been made to the Bill as the result of our representations during Committee and which will be welcomed in local government circles. I refer particularly to one or two of the proposals which I advanced during the Second Reading debate especially that with regard to lifting the periods of sickness and injury involving suspended or reduced earnings, as it were, from the period of ascertainment; and I am glad the Minister has been able to meet us in that connection. Another point which was raised concerned the employee who was transferred from one occupation to another, and was thereby involved in a reduction of pay, having the right to carry his pension benefits throughout his service.
As to the Bill itself, I would say that it has certainly made a real contribution to the development of superannuation rights in local government service. It has brought, or will bring, the Local Government Superannuation Act more in accord with the Civil Service practice and with the regulations now operating to provide superannuation for those employed in the National Health Service. It has done much to tidy up the administration in the local government service, particularly in the recognition of service in respect of deputy-registrars and female nurses, and others who are outside the scope of the 1937 Act, but who will be brought into superannuation benefit when this Bill passes into law.
This is another stage in the history of local government superannuation, although I could have hoped that the Minister would have added lustre to his name and distinguished himself to a greater degree by widening the Bill in order to embrace local government personnel in the widest uniformity. But, having regard to the representations that have been made during the passage of this Measure perhaps he will have second thoughts and include that other class of public servant as officers in the


local government service before the Bill receives the Royal Assent.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. John Edwards: The matters with which we are concerned, as we all recognised in the Committee upstairs, are difficult and sometimes technical; and part of our difficulty is yet to come. We have yet to have the Regulations, and if my experience with the National Health Service Regulations is anything to go by, there will be difficulties to be faced; and difficulties which could not possibly have been dealt with in the Standing Committee. But we are all grateful to the Minister for the changes which he has made in the later stages of the Bill in answer to the points put during the Committee stage, and I should like to detain the House for just a few moments to refer to one matter which I then raised.
The Minister will recollect that I spoke at some length on the subject of the forfeiture of contributions in certain cases, and I quoted at length the judgment of Lord Justice Scott in Wilkinson v. the Barking Corporation. In particular, I referred to Lord Justice Scott's conclusion, in which he said, and I quote:
I have felt bound to call attention to these aspects of the existing legislation for consideration by the appropriate authorities.
I will not repeat now what I said then, but I did make the suggestion that there should be some appeal to the courts, or, if not, that the Minister should consider bringing into operation the provisions of Section 290 of the Local Government Act, 1933, governing the attendance of witnesses, production of documents and payment of costs.
The Minister made a very friendly and sympathetic reply, but I would be grateful to him if he would tell us if there is any hope of his doing something about this when the Bill reaches another place. It is an important matter of procedure, and I would ask him if he would reconsider the point.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I should like to join in the thanks which have been expressed to the Minister for the courteous way in which he dealt with 60 Amendments and various new Clauses which came before him in Committee upstairs. There are one or

two points to which I should like to refer now, but before doing so I wish to declare my interest, as by profession I am a local government officer.
The Bill provides that the Minister can provide by Regulations for the payment of annual benefits and so on. In Committee, some of us stressed the desirability of the local government officers achieving something which has already been attained by the Civil Service and by the teaching profession, in that after 30 years of qualifying service a pension may be drawn by a man at 50, instead of the local government officer having to put in 40 years of qualifying service. The 30 years concession would bring some flexibility into the service, would help in promotion, and would give a freedom of choice to a man who may have served a large number of years and who felt a sense of frustration. I hope that, when the Regulations are framed, that may be taken into account.
There was also the question of the officer who, under this Bill, forfeits the whole of his previous contributory service. The Minister has not been able to meet that difficulty, nor, I fear, the difficulty of the officer who retires, like an hon. Member of this House must retire when he is elected, and who receives back the £150 which he paid as a deposit to the returning officer on nomination, but who, as in my case, has to forfeit the £150 of accumulated interest on the contributions. I apologise for bringing in a personal illustration, but it is interesting to be able to focus attention on a particular point.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Houghton: It was a very pleasant experience to work with the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues who helped him in the Standing Committee, and I should like to join with my hon. Friends in expressing our appreciation to the Minister. We often disagree with him, and he with us, but we did not divide against him once. Indeed, he was rather free with his promises to give further consideration to matters before the Report stage, and there are many omissions from the Order paper that we have before us tonight. Very generously, we have not pressed him to say what was the result of the consideration of some of the matters with which he has not been able to deal by way of Amend-


ment now, but I am sure that he gave careful consideration to all the matters which he promised he would consider.
This has been a complicated Bill. The House probably has not fully appreciated that it represents a distinct change in the type of legislation for local government superannuation. This Bill was complicated, and troubled us a good deal because we had to dis-member the Local Government Superannuation Act of 1937. All the superannuation provisions were in that Act, and in the Schedules; but under this Bill the first thing we did was to cast out provisions which had found a place in the 1937 Act and to provide for them to be dealt with by Regulation.
In the first line of Clause 1 we see the statement that
The Minister may by regulations make provision —",
and in the first line of subsection (2) we see that
The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision …".
In line 15, on page 1, we read that provision may be made under Regulations. Hon. Members will see that nearly every Clause and subsection refers to the power to make Regulations.
Our difficulty in dealing with the Bill upstairs was that we were asked to cast out of the 1937 Act provisions which were there for us to see, and to agree to the matters concerned being dealt with by Regulations which were not there for us to see. At one stage I suggested to the Minister that we would have been much happier to have had the Bill in one hand and the Regulations in the other, so that we could match them and see what was being done with the provisions of the 1937 Act which were to be excluded from this Bill. At the same time, I welcome this changed approach to these complicated matters of superannuation.
However, I want to commend to the House some fresh thinking about the way we should legislate on superannuation matters affecting public servants. Before doing so I want to say, in no party spirit, that the Minister inherited this Bill from the Labour Government. It was made necessary by the Superannuation Act of 1949 which was passed by the Labour Government. That Act, which covered the central government services, introduced a provision for pensions for the

widows and orphans of civil servants who died during service or after retirement.
The Act remedied a great weakness in the superannuation provisions for members of the public services. This Bill carries those reforms into the local government service. We are bound to admit that this is a beneficent legacy from the Labour Government, and it has fallen to the Minister to carry it into effect. It will, as my hon. Friends have said, be welcomed in the local government services, as it extends to them the reforms introduced in regard to the Civil Service three years ago.
My final point is that I wonder whether this is a satisfactory way of dealing with the pension provisions of workers in the Government and local government service. It seems to me that pensions are part of the conditions of service. It seems strange that we should be spending time in Committee upstairs and on the Floor of this House examining every line, every comma and every refinement of superannuation arrangements, when we spend no time at all in discussing salary scales, increments, subsistence allowances, substitution pay and all the other conditions of service.
So far as I am aware, in industry conditions of service relating to pay are linked with conditions of service as regards pensions and they are both regarded comprehensively as the conditions of service of the worker. But for historical reasons, no doubt, we separate the one from the other and we pay attention in great detail to pensions and have little to do with conditions of service affecting pay and emoluments in Government and local government service. I have commented before on the strange contrast between our meticulous examination of small matters affecting pensions in this House and the freedom of trade unions outside to negotiate with the Treasury, the Postmaster-General and to go to arbitration tribunals on matters involving millions of public expenditure—and all that taking place outside this House.
It seems to me to be all lop-sided. If for statutory reasons, because it is necessary to impose on local authorities certain conditions in a matter of this kind, we must have an Act of Parliament at all, I suggest it can be done by an enabling Measure without going into all


the detail with which we have had to deal in connection with this Bill. I admit that this Bill pushes aside a lot of complicated detail to be dealt with by Regulation, but we have few opportunities to discuss legislation in general, its purpose, and the need for it in the light of present conditions.
When a Bill of this kind comes before the House it is as well if we pause a moment or two to see whether some fundamental change should be made in our approach to this kind of legislation. Probably superannuation legislation was necessary in the first place to stop pensions being paid to a lot of people who did not earn them, who did not deserve them and who were parasites on public funds. That might have been the historical reason for bringing pensions before this House whilst leaving the Civil Service Commissioners to deal with recruitment and the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to safeguard the question of expense. If there is any body of opinion in the House which can influence the trend of legislation, we ought to be realists and acknowledge that super-annuation is part of the conditions of service and we ought to allow the details to be settled in the ordinary way by negotiation between the staff and the employer.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: This is an enabling Measure, and I take it that that means it will be a long time before a similar Bill comes before this House. With all the force at my command at this time of night, I urge the Minister to reconsider the speech which was made both in Committee and again tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle).
As the Minister knows very well, when the 1937 Act was placed on the Statute Book the majority of the Selby-Bigge Committee, whose findings led up to that Act, were strongly of the opinion that what are known technically as "servants" should be included in that Measure. Sir Kingsley Wood at that time, for reasons which no longer apply, came to the conclusion that it should not be made obligatory for local authorities to include the manual workers in their employ. Here, it seems to us is a final chance. I hope the Minister, when the

Bill reaches another place, will reconsider the attitude he adopted when the Bill was passing through the Committee stage and see if, at long last, he cannot do something to meet what appears to us to be a very just and legitimate demand.
May I join with my hon. Friends on this side of the House in expressing our gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman and those associated with him for the way in which they have met points which we put to them during the Committee stage? I am afraid that occasionally tempers upstairs did get a little frayed. The reason was that we knew this was an agreed Measure by bodies outside the House and that the Regulations to be promulgated under the Act were not before us. We were, to that extent, working in the dark. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman and those associated with him have met us in a very fair and friendly way.

11.7 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I do not think I need keep the House very long in winding up this debate. My right hon. Friend would wish to thank hon. Members in all parts of the House for the way in which they have helped to make this a good Bill. There have been several points raised in this debate, but I should be wandering rather far on the Third Reading if I attempted to go into any of these matters. My right hon. Friend has said he has heard these points and will certainly give them his close attention. I cannot say anything more than that. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Third Reading.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

HOSPITAL OF THE BLESSED TRINITY AT GUILDFORD BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

HOSPITAL OF ST. MARY MAGDALEN AT COLCHESTER BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

MR. DAVIDSON, KENYA (DEPORTATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Sir Herbert Butcher.]

11.11 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I do not make any apology for raising on the Adjournment the question of the deportation of Commander Struan Robert Davidson from Kenya, but I should like to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for keeping him in his place tonight. As he indicated in his speech during the day, he had a heavy day on Friday, arising from my Motion on the colour bar, he had a heavy day on Monday in connection with the debate on the proposal that the Nyasaland chiefs should come to a Select Committee, and he has had a heavy day today on the enabling Bill in connection with Central African Federation.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman's duties are not only those of attending debates in the House of Commons, but that many of us—and I acknowledge that I am one of the greatest offenders in this respect—send him a great deal of correspondence, which means that he must be in his office for long hours in addition to all the tasks of administration in the Colonial Office. This is particularly heavy upon him at the present time because of the absence of the Minister of State.
I feel impelled to express what has been uttered during the day, our sympathy with the Minister of State. I have had some associations not only with him but with his son, and I would like him to know that on this side of the House, just as deeply as on the other side of the House, we have an intense sympathy in regard to the tragedy which he and the son have suffered.
I am raising the case of Commander Struan Robert Davidson not only as a personal matter but more because it is an illustration of the powers of deportation to which I have drawn the attention of the House on a number of occasions, and which this case illustrates. I take the view that issues of liberty are important, even if they affect only one individual, but in this instance it is an

illustration of a power which is applied in other cases as well, and therefore becomes of greater importance.
I do not think there is any dispute about the facts. Commander Struan Robert Davidson served in the Australian Navy. On demobilisation from 1945 to 1947 he served on the Gezira scheme in the Sudan. He went to Kenya in 1947 and was there for three years, first as a price control official at Mombasa, and later as an assistant superintendent of prisons at Nairobi.
After serving for three years in Kenya he went to Northern Rhodesia, where he was employed by the firm of S. & S. Carrs (Northern Rhodesia) Ltd. In August, 1952, he left Northern Rhodesia travelling through Nyasaland with his African servant, Yatima, and he appears to have crossed from Nyasaland into Kenya at a point where there were no customs or immigration posts.
According to his own statement, it did not enter his mind that an entry permit was necessary in his case because he had been resident in Kenya between 1947 and 1950, and he had only two years previously temporarily gone to Northern Rhodesia. According to his own statement, he did not realise that an entry permit was necessary for his African servant. Nevertheless they were both arrested. Davidson was fined £50, and Yatima was detained for deportation, both on the grounds that they had entered Kenya without an entry permit.
On 5th November deportation orders were issued against both of them. Davidson had not paid his fine, and in consequence had been kept in prison for one month, but he was held in prison altogether for three months and two days before he was deported. I heard only last Friday that Yatima had been kept in prison for four and a half months before his deportation by air to Nyasaland took place on 11th March.
To that story I think I need only add in this particular case that Davidson himself makes the complaint that he was beaten up while he was in prison. When he arrived in this country he had to go to hospital for treatment. The doctor there said that his ligaments were torn. The doctor could not say, of course, how that injury had occurred, but he said it


was not inconsistent with the story Davidson had told.
Those appear to be the facts—at least as they have been reported to me. Upon them I want to make two comments. The first is the incidental one that it seems to me a little extraordinary, even if the decision to deport Davidson and the African Yatima was justified, that Davidson should have been kept in prison for three months and two days before the deportation order was carried out, and that Yatima should have been kept in prison for four and a half months before being deported to the neighbouring country of Nyasaland.
But it is the much bigger issue of deportation itself which I want to emphasise. As I think the right hon. Gentleman knows, and certainly as other Members know, I have raised this issue of deportation without trial from our Colonies again and again in the House of Commons. I have raised it not only when I have been in opposition, but I have raised it from the opposite benches very vigorously.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): The hon. Gentleman said "without trial." He is not suggesting on this occasion that this gentleman was deported without trial?

Mr. Fenner Brockway: What I suggest is that the trial took place for entry without permit, and for that he was fined £50 with the alternative of one month's imprisonment. What I am suggesting is that the subsequent deportation took place without a specific trial. That is the point which I am making at the moment. I am not raising this matter because the right hon. Gentleman is the Secretary of State for the Colonies and because I am on the Opposition side of the House. I raised it just as vigorously, perhaps even more vigorously, when I was on the Government side of the House and my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) was Secretary of State.
It is the principle of deportation itself against which I am very strongly protesting tonight, and though the right hon. Gentleman may complain because I have not given him notice of this, I should like to ask him this question. Perhaps if he

has not got the facts immediately before him he will reply later. What has happened as a result of the inquiry of the Governors in the various Colonies regarding the power of deportation? A report was requested from the Governors. That report was initiated, I think, because I raised the matter in the House, and even if the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer that question now—I admit I have not given him notice of it—perhaps at some later stage he can inform the House what was the result of the inquiries which were made to the Governors in this respect.
This issue seems to me to be a very essential issue of human freedom. It does not only apply to those who are in the Colonies. I have become concerned at the restriction on human movement which is now taking place in all parts of the world, and I hope that it is as a part of the bigger issue that the right hon. Gentleman will meet the points which I have endeavoured to raise tonight.

11.23 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): First, let me assure the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) that no apologies are at all necessary as far as I am concerned. One of the things which any Minister and the House as a whole will understand is the necessity of raising, at whatever inconvenient hour, any matter concerning the individual liberty of anyone. Therefore, no apologies are necessary on the hon. Member's behalf for having happened to have had a series of draws on the Adjournment. In fact, I had seriously considered whether I would advance the proposition that we might go into partnership on the Calcutta Sweep next year, so successful does the hon. Member seem to be.
I would also like to thank the hon. Gentleman for the very kind words that he spoke about the tragedy which has fallen on my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs. I shall make a point of telling him of the very generous references which the hon. Gentleman made to him and to his son.
Before I go into the actual details of this case, I want to make one point clear, and that is on the larger issue which the hon. Member was raising, that of deportation. In this case, this is not a deportation case within the ordinary connotation


of the term. Deportation applies to those who are legally inside a terrritory. Persons can be deported only if they are legally resident in a place. That does not arise with this particular gentleman. He was an illegal immigrant, and in order that the hon. Member should know what my information is, I must recite the actual circumstances.
Mr. Davidson was not a permanent resident in Kenya. There is no question of deportation in the ordinary sense of the word. I informed the House on 15th April, 1953, that Mr. Davidson was evicted under the Immigration Control Order for unlawfully entering the Colony without an entry permit or pass. Mr. Davidson might be right in his allegation that there was no control at the point where he entered the Colony, but it was his duty, as every citizen knows, to present himself in person to the nearest immigration officer immediately on arrival. He was sentenced at his trial to pay £50 in fines or, in default, to serve one month's imprisonment. He did not pay the fine and was committed to prison. Any person whose entry is unlawful is under the Order a prohibited immigrant, and, in the loose sense of the term, may be deported as such. It is not strictly accurate to say he was deported without a trial. His deportation, in the loose sense, came as a result of the trial in which he was sentenced and in which he was found to be illegally in the Territory.
To get things in chronological order, I think I ought to deal with the complaint Mr. Davidson made about his treatment in prison. He made a complaint about his treatment, which was investigated in the ordinary way by the Resident Magistrate in Mombasa. The report shows that he refused to leave the prison superintendent's office when ordered to do so, resisted eviction from the office and tried to prevent the prison officials taking him to his cell. The Magistrate held that the force used was not in any way excessive or beyond what was strictly necessary in the maintenance of prison discipline. I cannot think how his complaint could have been dealt with in a more regular way, or that there could have been more convincing evidence.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether he had complained about conditions of his imprisonment or about his cell?

Mr. Lyttelion: I think so, yes. He complained about his treatment in prison. That was covered by the two points the hon. Gentleman was making. I wish to go back to the chronological order. The Order for the deportation—again I am using the term loosely—was signed by the Governor on 5th November, 1952, and the Order provided that his detention in prison should be extended while arrangements for his deportation were made. I think when I replied to questions before in this House, that some surprise was expressed, and I think one hon. Member described it as astonishing procedure to keep in prison someone who was about to be deported—again I use the word in the loose sense. But it is common practice in all Colonial Territories and also in this country. It is not at all unknown in other countries. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the accommodation provided at Ellis Island for people who have not complied with the United States immigration legislation.
What happens is that, when someone is to be deported, the civil authority generally applies powers to keep that person in some form of detention so that he does not circulate with the rest of the population and put the police to the trouble of picking him up again when the time comes for his deportation. This is much more like a remand prison, and that is what happened in this case, and why it happened. He was nominally kept in prison longer than the actual sentence that non-payment of the fine would otherwise have entailed.
In brief, Mr. Davidson was legally deported under the provisions of the Kenya Immigration Control Order, and I do not propose to take any action in the matter. I hope that the hon. Member will rest satisfied with my answer, which is purely factual, and I am reluctant to expand it. I have particular inhibitions upon this subject of individuals. We must be very careful on personal matters to go no further than is absolutely necessary to satisfy hon. Members, like the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, who are absolutely right to be extremely


vigilant in all matters involving personal liberty.
I must ask him sincerely if he is satisfied with the answer so far. For reasons which do not apply to this case more than to any other, we in this House are protected from being pursued—in the Scottish sense—by persons whose actions or character may be impugned before this House. I am not thinking of Mr. Davidson in particular. I should like to con-

tent myself upon these personal matters, now and in the future, with a bare recital of the facts and of the legality of the actions taken by the Kenya Government, rather than enter into a controversial picture of the circumstances surrounding these events.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.